The tragedy of climate commons
Imagine a group of 100 fisherman faced with declining stocks and worried about the sustainability of their resource and their livelihoods. One of them works out that the total sustainable catch is about 20% of what everyone is catching now (with some uncertainty of course) but that if current trends of increasing catches (about 2% a year) continue the resource would be depleted in short order. Faced with that prospect, the fishermen gather to decide what to do. The problem is made more complicated because some groups of fishermen are much more efficient than the others. The top 5 catchers, catch 20% of the fish, and the top 20 catch almost 75% of the fish. Meanwhile the least efficient 50 catch only 10% of the fish and barely subsist. Clearly, fairness demands that the top catchers lead the way in moving towards a more sustainable future.
The top 5 do start discussing how to manage the transition. They realise that the continued growth in catches - driven by improved technology and increasing effort - is not sustainable, and make a plan to reduce their catch by 80% over a number of years. But there is opposition - manufacturers of fishing boats, tackle and fish processing plants are worried that this would imply less sales for them in the short term. Strangely, they don't seem worried that a complete collapse of the fishery would mean no sales at all - preferring to think that the science can't possibly be correct and that everything will be fine. These manufacturers set up a number of organisations to advocate against any decreases in catch sizes - with catchy names like the Fisherfolk for Sound Science, and Friends of Fish. They then hire people who own an Excel spreadsheet program do "science" for them - and why not? They live after all in a free society.
After spending much energy and money on trying to undermine the science - with claims that the pond is much deeper than it looks, that the fish are just hiding, that the records of fish catches were contaminated by being done near a supermarket - the continued declining stocks and smaller and smaller fish make it harder and harder to sound convincing. So, in a switch of tactics so fast it would impress Najinsky, the manufacturers lobby suddenly decides to accept all that science and declares that the 'fish are hiding' crowd are just fringe elements. No, they said, we want to help with this transition, but …. we need to be sure that the plans will make sense. So they ask their spreadsheet-wielding "advocacy scientists" to calculate exactly what would happen if the top 5 (and only the top 5) did cut their catches by 80%, but meanwhile everyone else kept increasing their catch at the current (unsustainable rate). Well, the answers were shocking - the total catch would be initially still be 84% of what it is now and would soon catch up with current levels. In fact, the exact same techniques that were used to project the fishery collapse imply that this would only delay the collapse by a few years! and what would be the point of that?
The fact that the other top fishermen are discussing very similar cuts and that the fisherfolk council was trying to coordinate these actions to minimise the problems that might emerge, are of course ignored and the cry goes out that nothing can be done. In reality of course, the correct lesson to draw is that everything must be done.
In case you think that no-one would be so stupid as to think this kind of analysis has any validity, I would ask that you look up the history of the Newfoundland cod fishery. It is indeed a tragedy.
And the connection to climate? Here.
I'll finish with a quotation attributed to Edmund Burke, one the founders of the original conservative movement:
"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
See here for a much better picture of what coordinated action could achieve.
English
Español
Français
Türkçe
Português
Slovenčina
Svenska
Български
Deutsch
Chinese (simplified)
Japanese
Italian
Finnish
Czech
Climate
7 May 2009 at 9:59 AM
Gavin,
Waxman-Markey only mandate U.S. actions, so that’s what I looked at.
But, just in case the world wanted to play along, I looked at that too. Please see my Climate Analysis Waxman-Markey Part II.
Perhaps you could put the GISS model on the effort, instead of me having to rely on “Excel-type” models.
-Chip
[Response: I look forward to the day when you and your boss start giving presentations that stress the need for coordinated action lead by the developed countries in order to tackle emissions rather than giving the bottom-feeders talking points to support making no efforts at all. Until then, forgive me if remain a tad cynical. - gavin]
7 May 2009 at 10:05 AM
Chip’s point is still well taken that domestic action in absence of any international action will not have a enormous impact on long-term climate forcings. That said, he doesn’t address the essential connection between taking actions domestically and furthering international agreements for reductions abroad. The fact that America alone cannot avert “dangerous” warming is a justification for coordinating international action, not inaction.
It is also important to note that domestic action would have various technological spillover effects, as our development of sustainable technologies as a result of market incentives that correctly price carbon would allow us to export these technologies to the developing world, reducing both the impacts of local air pollution and carbon emissions in places like China and India.
7 May 2009 at 10:10 AM
A very good point \The love of money sure is the root of all evil\ we must all guard against it.
7 May 2009 at 10:12 AM
There are a number of studies made by Elinor Ostrom that are quite useful on this issue.
One of them is the book “Rules, Games and Common-pool resources”, written by Ostrom with others. They make lab behavioural experiments and compare them with field studies.
It´s very academical, and no light reading. But very good to understand the complexity of the issue as well as the possible ways out of it.
7 May 2009 at 10:14 AM
Your graphic has 2% annual growth as the worst case. Aren’t we above 3% in recent years? Is business-as-usual beyond the scope of the models?
7 May 2009 at 10:22 AM
Also the US likes to be considered the leader of the free world.
OK, nowadays the leader is the one at the back saying “Charge!” whilst everyone else charges forward, but it used to be the person in front or at least near the front, inspiring their people to greater feats by taking on their risks their dangers and showing no fear.
Maybe the US could start leading like the old leaders used to.
7 May 2009 at 10:24 AM
See also:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=arguments+against+public+health
> Prometheus: Less than A Quarter Inch by 2100 Archives ….. Roger, you asked what possible difference a quarter inch average rise in sea level …
sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001004less_than_a_quarter_.html
(also posted at
7 May 2009 at 10:24 AM
Zeke,
I agree. We will not significantly alter the course of future climate through the emissions reductions achieved in the U.S.—that is the point of my MasterResource.org articles. But, perhaps through technological innovation, we’ll be able to take something we developed and distribute it around the world. But rather than imposing an artificial energy crisis on all Americans, it is not possible to spur innovation through other methods?
-Chip
[Response: “An artificial energy crisis”? Give me a break. -gavin]
7 May 2009 at 10:27 AM
Practical and moral reasons for action by the United States abound. It is true that “we” have dallied so long that we must now do the most effective things rapidly. We must also do the most important things.
If it is true that we must change how our society approaches this issue in order to survive, then that must become a prominent point of discussion in adition to promoting the physical solutions. If we cannot adjust ourselves to the needs of the times, we will fail, as other civilizations have in the past. Unfortunately, we will be taking everyone down with us.
So perhaps it is most conservative and responsible to address the solution of fairly radical social change to amend our social norms to put the selfish interests of individual groups in the back seat instead of the driver’s seat where thay have been for so long.
In other words, we need to shake off the 30 years of acceptance of Reaganite worship of capitalists and decisively put the interests of the society and the planet first. If we don’t do so in a timely fashion, we might lose it all.
7 May 2009 at 10:28 AM
It’s a dog eat world world out there.
At least that’s what many dogs seem to think.
7 May 2009 at 10:38 AM
This is the most motivating call to action I’ve seen so far. I hope it gets wide distribution. I especially like that it’s a true story, and as it unfolds you recognize how apposite each event and player is to the global commons which is our atmosphere.
7 May 2009 at 10:44 AM
We think that science is going to save us but our technology and culture is potentially going to kill us. Its just so against our way of life to cut back and to not indulge and aim for profit and hence material wealth.
Time to change the culture, of community, of economics, of poitics, of science even (its very reductionist in nature even now and hence has killed the spirit in many ways).
7 May 2009 at 10:55 AM
you know, this would make a great role-play for teaching folks about the issues.
7 May 2009 at 10:56 AM
We who are citizens of the United States should accept that we own moral responsibility for creating the Global Warming problem even more surely than China and India own its future.
No other people or government will act sufficiently if we don’t. Our action is the prerequisite for other action. We have to go first, whether you call it leadership or something else.
7 May 2009 at 11:02 AM
So if we don’t cut back on carbon emissions now by 80%, we won’t be able to cut carbon in the future? The largest fish catcher will continue to catch his fish, but everyone else should cut back? Even when there was a plan in place to restrict fish catching, it didn’t work?
7 May 2009 at 11:04 AM
I just heard a radio piece about Peter Ward’s notion of the Medea Hypothesis.. interview at http://www.kuow.org/program.php?id=17474
Described as: “We like to think that life on earth is self–sustaining. If people hadn’t upset the balance of renewal, everything would be in perfect harmony. But what if that isn’t the case at all? What if the earth is naturally self–destructive? Paleontologist Peter Ward argues that Mother Earth is like the character Medea who killed her own children not the nurturing mother we like to imagine. What is the future of the earth and what does the human race have to do with it?”
7 May 2009 at 11:05 AM
Jim, #7, but I prefer chicken!
7 May 2009 at 11:06 AM
Gavin,
You tell a (fish) tale about limited resources.
If Waxman-Markey were about limited resources, I wouldn’t be chiming in. I agree with you 100% that fossil fuels will not always be mankind’s primary energy source—and that we’ll have to develop some other energy technologies for us to carry on in the future.
The issue is whether or not we have reached the crisis stage in terms of how much fossil fuels we have left. But, that is out of my field, and that is not really the issue is it?
Instead, Congressional hearings after Congressional hearings are held to discuss climate change and how the potential for climate change compels us to seek alternative energy sources.
This is where I, as a climatologist, come in. My analysis, using accepted emissions scenarios and accepted modeling tools, shows that Waxman-Markey will not address the issue of mitigating projected climate change. We need significant contributions from the rest of the world—actually, not just significant, but we need the vast majority of the emissions reductions to come from the developing nations of the world.
So, the issue before us today is not really the same as you describe about cod fishing. If it were, neither of us would likely be involved. Instead, it is about reasons why we should stop using the resources we currently have. And one of those reasons (climate change) turns out to be something that you and I know a little about—and thus our contributions.
-Chip
[Response: Metaphors are never perfect, and you know perfectly well the point that is being made. Blaming the poor of the world for not stepping up to the plate when the rich won’t make the smallest first step is immoral. Focusing on the negligible effects of individually small actions (either at a personal, city, state or federal level) is designed purely and simply to prevent any actions being taken at all. That too is immoral and if you think you are absolved from the consequences of your actions because you used standard models you are sorely mistaken. No-one is hiding the extent of the challenge here, but you have a choice about what you campaign for - Easter Island anyone? - gavin]
7 May 2009 at 11:16 AM
>We who are citizens of the United States should accept that we own moral responsibility for creating the Global Warming problem even more surely than China and India own its future.
So, because 30, 40 years ago, someone else did the same thing unawares, people who are aware of the problem have no moral responsibility to prevent it?
[Response: No. But per-capita emissions are ~4 times smaller in China than in the US - they do not have the same responsibility just because they have a larger population. - gavin]
7 May 2009 at 11:18 AM
“Paleontologist Peter Ward argues that Mother Earth is like the character Medea who killed her own children not the nurturing mother we like to imagine.”
So would Medea’s kids have lived longer if they’d stabbed each other in the heart before she did it?
I don’t think so, do you?
7 May 2009 at 11:27 AM
Gavin wrote: “And the connection to climate? Here.”
Not sure why the link to the “MasterResource” site. As far as I can tell it seems to be a run-of-the-mill denialist site with content provided by industry-funded phony “think tanks” like the American Enterprise Institute, devoted to preaching pseudo-ideological “Climate Science According To Exxon-Mobil” denialism to a choir of so-called “conservative” Ditto-Heads.
And Knappenberger’s article seems to be a long-winded way of saying that if the Waxman-Markey bill is the be-all and end-all of emissions reductions, and nothing more than what’s in that bill is ever done by anyone anywhere, it won’t be enough.
Well, duh. Waxman-Markey is at best just a start towards moving in the right direction.
7 May 2009 at 11:31 AM
In general, a Tragedy of the Commons is where property rights are not in place. And one averts a Tragedy of the Commons, by ensuring property rights are clearly defined. In the case of fish this would mean ownership of the fish; no such problem would exist if fishermen could own, buy and sell the fish in the ocean. Resources would gravitate to the most efficient use thereof.
But of course there is no such simple solution where the property in question is the atmosphere.
7 May 2009 at 11:31 AM
its the alarmists that have the arrogance to think that humans could catch all the fish in the sea, theres no proof and that theory is rapidly collapsing, its really to do with the moon going around the sun, thats why its gets worse every day, theres nothing that can be done about it, in fact its good for the fish that humans eat them
7 May 2009 at 11:50 AM
Of course, if you extend the “fishery” analogy the following happens:
The most efficient fishermen make a unilateral move to reduce their catches thus driving down demand for the fish and the technologies to catch them. This results in there being a greater number of fish for the least efficient fishermen to catch and a cheaper material cost to catch them.
Presented with this unearned competitive advantage, the least efficient fisherman start to enjoy greater comparative success and become wealthier than their more efficient counterparts who made unilateral sacrifices.
Of course, the end result is the same (no more fish) but the least efficient fisherman (now wealthier than their more efficient counterparts) are better capitalized and equipped to deal with the collapse of the fishery.
After moving unilaterally, the wealth of the most efficient fishermen is steadily transferred to the least efficient leaving the efficient fisherman prostrate to the whim and fancy of the wealthier, less efficient lot.
Just sayin’
7 May 2009 at 12:02 PM
I posted over there at the mastermaster page the same links I posted here at the same time, 7 May 2009 at 10:24 AM. Waiting to see if they show up.
I’d have thought that “master resource” meant the whole biosphere, not just the burnable fossil carbon portion thereof.
7 May 2009 at 12:11 PM
Aaron, how do you know that it will be cheaper to catch them?
If you aren’t rich (the lower 50% were subsisting, IIRC) then you need to take a lo an out. That loa n accrues in terest. Which increases the cost of owning the expensive kit.
7 May 2009 at 12:16 PM
He thinks to himself…should I read the piece by this Knappenberger guy…nah time’s precious, just do a brief scan to get the gestalt. So within the first 1/4 of the piece I read:
“…we are barraged daily with the horrors of what the climate will become if we don’t stop emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere…”, followed by: “The one thing, above all others, that they don’t want you to know is this….[insert conspiracy theory of the moment here]”, and a bit later:
“…save the earth from human-caused climate apocalypse…”
Where do these people come from? And why is anyone with a brain or a conscience giving a rat’s ass or 5 milliseconds of attention to what they say?
7 May 2009 at 12:27 PM
@ Rene Cheront: this is precisely the point of emissions trading plans (a.k.a. cap and trade). Such plans have worked very well in the past, e.g., in the case of sulfur emissions. So, in fact, there is a simple solution in this instance.
7 May 2009 at 12:31 PM
Outstanding piece of scholarship Sukiho (21). You should publish that.
7 May 2009 at 12:33 PM
> property rights
> no such problem would exist if fishermen could own, buy and sell
> the fish in the ocean. Resources would gravitate to the most
> efficient use thereof.
Whales aren’t fish, but this rings of the proposal some decades back that the best use of the whaling fleet was to harvest all the whales, turn that whole resource into money, and invest it in the markets because the markets were going up much faster than the average 3% per year rate, on average, at which nature increases. And scrap the fleet because the price of scrap iron was so high.
Economically, it made perfect sense.
What’s the problem?
Markets don’t give any ownership to the future, they assume someone _now_living_ owns everything and can make rational decisions about its use.
It’s nonsense applied to life on Earth. No brief human lifespan can appropriate ownership of everything alive — because that takes ownership of the entire future over which life can extend.
If we aren’t any smarter than that, our planet is going to end up as silent as the rest of the observable universe is, and rather soon.
Fermi Paradox? What paradox? Intelligence doesn’t emerge if mercantilism emerges first, maybe that’s the answer.
7 May 2009 at 1:03 PM
Re 27:
Jim, sorry that the strong rhetoric turned you off.
Let’s just cut to the chase then.
Do the analysis yourself and tell me what you get.
-Chip
7 May 2009 at 1:06 PM
Chip Knappenberger wrote: “But, perhaps through technological innovation, we’ll be able to take something we developed and distribute it around the world.”
Well, that mission has already been accomplished. Thanks to the death-grip of the fossil fuel corporations on US energy policy, the USA has long since lost its leadership role in clean energy technology, and technologies originally developed in the USA are now being manufactured and exported by other countries. China, for example, will this year become the word’s leading exporter of wind turbines and is on its way to becoming the world’s leading exporter of photovoltaic systems.
The simple fact is that the “MasterResource” site has a very clear agenda, which is to ensure business-as-usual consumption of fossil fuels for as long as possible, in order to enrich the fossil fuel corporations who fund the pseudo-scientific, pseudo-ideological, phony “think tank” propaganda that makes up most of the site’s content.
7 May 2009 at 1:13 PM
Along with denial of anthropogenic global warming goes denial of the potential of clean renewable energy technologies to not only meet our energy “needs” but to provide abundant clean energy forever.
Part of the denialist litany, touched upon in Chip Knappenberger’s comments here, is to assert that phasing out fossil fuels requires “technological innovation” before we can turn to other sources of energy.
What these folks do NOT want you to know “above all else” is that today’s clean energy and efficiency technologies can already do the job — we need to get busy deploying them as quickly, and as far and wide, as possible. Not wait around for “technological innovations”, meanwhile consuming ever-increasing quantities of fossil fuels.
The insistence that we need “technological innovations” before we can move forward to phase out fossil fuels and shift to clean renewable energy sources is just another stalling tactic, to keep business-as-usual consumption of fossil fuels going as long as possible.
7 May 2009 at 1:16 PM
#30 Hank Roberts:
Ouch, that’s a parable worth repeating over and over. Is there an article available covering that “rational man” scenario?
7 May 2009 at 1:18 PM
Re #1 Waxman-Markey only mandate U.S. actions, so that’s what I looked at….just in case the world wanted to play along.”
Mainstream published science is moving along. I know that only three major recent published studies (to my recollection) have really taken up the possibility that business as usual carbon-reduction policies might not be enough, but have you read these?
Irreversible climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions, Solomon et al, PNAS
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/01/28/0812721106.full.pdf+html
Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne, Allen et. al, Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08019.html
Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 °C, Meinshausen et al. Nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/full/nature08017.html
7 May 2009 at 1:19 PM
“This is where I, as a climatologist, come in. My analysis, using accepted emissions scenarios and accepted modeling tools, shows that Waxman-Markey will not address the issue of mitigating projected climate change. We need significant contributions from the rest of the world—actually, not just significant, but we need the vast majority of the emissions reductions to come from the developing nations of the world.”
I’m sorry, but do please give me an absolute freaking break Chip. You put up an utter straw man argument that nobody with any credence is making, and then purport to tear it down with “accepted modeling tools”. It’s plainly obvious to anyone who ponders the issue for 5 seconds that it’s a global problem, that the carbon balance of all nations needs to be addressed in solving it. This does not obviate in any way the fact that the larger emitters have a larger obligation based on both current and historical emissions. Your “accepted tools” are worthless incorporating the scientific and political dynamic by which a collaborative global response will likely, and must, emerge.
7 May 2009 at 1:21 PM
Remember, the title should have been: Tragedy of the Unmanaged Commons.
Look it up.
7 May 2009 at 1:21 PM
should be (34, end): Your “accepted tools” are worthless without incorporating the scientific and political dynamic by which a collaborative global response will likely, and must, emerge.
7 May 2009 at 1:22 PM
#27 Jim Bouldin:
“Where do these people come from? And why is anyone with a brain or a conscience giving a rat’s ass or 5 milliseconds of attention to what they say?”
Jim, if you mean questioners of AGW, “these people” come from various educational backgrounds, such as mine as a geologist, and although I have been occasionally accused of having a brain, I know I have a conscience. Although I am amused by those who are insulting, sarcastic, and arrogant in their comments about those who hold different views and come to different conclusions using the same data, I am saddened because their good points are greatly reduced in effectiveness when delivered with rancor.
Go ahead, insult me, I am only a lowly community college instructor, not an eminent researcher. I can take it!
7 May 2009 at 1:34 PM
The comment thread at Master Resource is scary. the data shows significant global warming even if we (the US0 undertakes a politically unimaginable mitigation program….and they applaud because it gives them an excuse to stay the course? Nauseating.
7 May 2009 at 1:48 PM
Joe Romm at ClimateProgress.org has a comment today about scripted denialist/obstructionist talking points that seems relevant (emphasis added):
And indeed, here’s what Rep. Barton himself says:
And guess what? The “recent analysis” to which Rep. Barton refers is Chip Knappenberger’s article, published on the ExxonMobil-supported MasterResource blog, and promoted by former Rush Limbaugh producer and Sen. James Inhofe staffer, professional climate change denier Marc Morano.
Does Chip Knappenberger’s article really amount to anything but pseudoscientific propaganda, coordinated to support the latest scripted talking points of the fossil fuel corporations’ bought-and-paid-for denialists and obstructionists?
7 May 2009 at 1:48 PM
Agreed Hank (30). Repeated ad nauseum over and over again, e.g. Maxam logging the coastal redwoods in the 80s (or actually much of historical logging in general for that matter).
7 May 2009 at 1:52 PM
Chip,
Assuming for a moment the conclusions of the AR4 are largely correct, carbon emissions will have an economic cost to the U.S. over the coming century. Pricing carbon emissions at a level that internalizes this social cost is hardly “imposing an artificial energy crisis”, but rather correcting for externalities that lead to market failures and a tragedy of the global atmospheric commons. There is an undeniably strong connection between the price and use rates of energy, and it is one of the primary reasons why Europe uses 33% less energy per unit of GDP and Japan 50% less vis-a-vis the U.S. None of the carbon price ranges discussed in various cap-and-trade or tax proposals that put a price on carbon would bring up energy prices higher than current European prices in the near-term (and long-term price impacts would be mitigated by technological development and innovation).
While there is a lively debate on the merits of a cap-and-trade versus a carbon tax (and I tend to be rather sympathetic to the idea of a largely revenue neutral carbon tax), you would be hard pressed to find an economist who would argue against internalizing carbon externalities in market prices if what the current consensus in climate science tells us is correct. If you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, Bill Nordhaus here at Yale has an excellent new book on the economic aspects of climate policy: http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300137486
The real thorny question is this: given that the social cost of emissions will be lower for the U.S. (given our location, climate, and adaptive capacity) than many poorer countries, should we price carbon at a level that results in the optimal mitigation for the harms facing our country, or for the harms facing the world as a whole? Self-interest alone can go a long way toward mitigation, but since those most impacted by climate change will likely be those least responsible for emissions, we cannot rely on self-interest alone to lead to the global Pareto-optimal outcome assuming that individual utility is wealth-independent.
-Zeke
7 May 2009 at 2:03 PM
Rene #22
“Resources would gravitate to the most efficient use thereof.”
That rationale works well for products directly tradeable, but not for externalities (especially diffuse ones) or common-pool resources.
7 May 2009 at 2:07 PM
This article obviously makes reference to Garrett Hardin’s 1968 article “The Tragedy of the Commons”, Science, Vol. 162, No. 3859 (PDF reprint). The commons in Hardin’s title are pre-Enclosure village common pastures, overgrazed by herders. While many in the climate science and environmental action communities are undoubtedly familiar with the article, I thought others researching this material should have easy access to the original, seminal article.
Hardin was in all of his writings, and perhaps his final action, a population activist. The original subtitle of the linked essay, “The population problem has no technical solution; it requires a fundamental extension in morality,” highlights the problem posed by aligning too closely with the original article and its concerns when writing for broader audiences (at least at present).
7 May 2009 at 2:15 PM
I agree with Mr. McCutchen. This should be seen as a call to arms. This bill is only the first step. More action is needed. And more action will follow. Indeed, could even such a small step have been taken in the USA in the last eight years ?
I see hope in the announcements from China of large expansions in wind energy to 100 GW by 2020, as well as talk of a carbon tax.
These are small beginnings, and they will grow as the fossil carbon lobby is exposed and shamed.
7 May 2009 at 2:18 PM
“Chip’s point is still well taken that domestic action in absence of any international action will not have a enormous impact on long-term climate forcings.”
The U.S., Canada, Australia, and Britain are among the leading laggers on producing domestic climate and energy legislation, as well as being the main promoters of nonsensical carbon capture/greenwashing programs. The
conclusion of the recent U.S. climate meeting didn’t get a whole lot of coverage:
The Miami Herald had some good coverage, including the German minister’s comments:
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/1022658.html
The Washington Post neglected to reprint those comments in any detail.
The NYT had no coverage of the meeting’s conclusion at all, instead opting to go with this story:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/04/28/28climatewire-climate-law-poses-trade-risks-lawmakers-unsu-10705.html
What they neglect to mention is that we already engage in trade wars over energy - for example, we lock out Brazilian ethanol using huge trade tariffs, and that was recently amplified in California by tagging vague “land-use change estimates” onto all biofuels - while quietly ignoring all similar issues with fossil fuels. Likewise, the government regularly intervenes in fossil fuel markets since it is a ‘national security issue’ - for example, in the 1990s Congress blocked the sale of Unocal to China and instead ensured that it went to Chevron.
Essentially, what California’s Air Resources Board just did, under prodding by industry and academic leaders, is to tie local fuel use to global carbon emission estimates - but only for biofuels:
No such carbon estimates were attached to tar sand oil imports from Canada. If once compares Canadian tar sand oil to light Middle East crudes, one finds a minimum ratio of ~3:1 in terms of carbon emissions per gallon of gasoline produced, tar sands:light crudes.
Thus, Canadian tar sand’s carbon costs per gallon of gasoline produced must be at least three times those for conventional gasoline - so why didn’t the Air Resources Board take that into account, Chip? Why did they instead pick a single number for all gasolines, regardless of source?
If they want to be consistent, they’ll have to now take into account the carbon budget estimates for ALL California energy imports, right?
7 May 2009 at 2:21 PM
It’s only a figure of speech, but if “so fast it would impress Najinsky” means to reference the great Russian dancer and choreographer, his name is commonly transcribed “Vaslav Nijinsky”. At any rate, Nijinsky was not noted for quickness so much as defiance of gravity. Some musicians are good for quickness: “so fast it would impress Paganini” - now that’s fast!
7 May 2009 at 2:23 PM
Doug, I wasn’t giving you a parable. It’s straight Chicago School economic calculation. I don’t recall who I readstated it in terms of the whaling fleet, decades ago — it was before 300 baud modems — but the calculation is routine, it’s a choice about how to value the future of a resource that yields 3% a year, and assumptions about whether converting resources into money and letting the money increase makes sense. Same applies to “energy” as a master resource, it’s like money that way.
One example at random from Googling:
e http://teacher.buet.ac.bd/akmsaifulislam/env107/lecture-18.pdf
—-excerpt—
Whale harvest and the commons
The harvesting of whales is an example of the
economics of the commons. ….
The blue whale was reduced to an estimated few
hundred individuals before harvesting was stopped in
the 1960s….
How is the future valued?
“A bird in hand is worth two in the bush.”
That is profit now is much more than a profit in the
future. Future value compared with the present value is an
important idea for environmental science.
The value of some elements of the environment may
increase, decrease or remain same.
Economic values as a function of time.
A negative value means that there is more value
attached to having something in the present than
having it in the future.
A positive value means that there is more value
attached to having something in the future than having
it today.
We might attach a positive value for endangered species
(its survival in the future is worth more than its existence
today)
——–end excerpt——
The value of the cod in the ocean was far greater than their value at the time they were fished out, but that’s not accounted for in nearsighted economics, only in ecological economics.
The value of unburned carbon is far greater than the value of carbon as fuel, considering its normal course through the biosphere.
“Carbon is life — don’t get burned.”
Nearsighted economics has proved it can’t go more than a few decades without falling down and backsliding. For those who win and hold on that’s a positive ratchet, if you ignore the ongoing degradation of the natural world, and they do, “not in my lifetime” is the motto.
This is well studied. It’s just like public health, you won’t find it mentioned in the industry PR sites, where they’re selling you to their sponsors.
Look for the science, it’s easy to find.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=fishery+investment+decisions+have+occurred
Fisheries Economics, a useless science? Wim Davidse … Investment decisions of the entrepreneurs. Several investment waves occurred in the seventies and …
www.eafe-fish.org/conferences/salerno/papers/paper2_wimdavidse.doc
“What do you think of western civilization, Mr. Gandhi?”
“I think that it would be a good idea.”
7 May 2009 at 2:37 PM
OK Doug (39). I call ‘em as I see ‘em. And no, I don’t mean questioners of AGW. I mean the attitude of someone who, at one site, caters to its readers’ preference for inflammatory lingo and oblique and faulty arguments for doing nothing whatsoever on a serious global problem, and then comes here and talks differently and believes he’s performed some sort of objective and meaningful analysis of the problem. Not a real good idea to wander onto someone else’s turf and play objective scientist after you just called them names elsewhere and thought nobody was listening.
7 May 2009 at 2:47 PM
>But per-capita emissions are ~4 times smaller in China than in the US - they do not have the same responsibility just because they have a larger population
So an 80% reduction by the US makes even this number bigger in China, plus the growth rate of emissions is such that even this number will converge. China currently has more than 20% of emissions(where is a good source of up-to-date data?), so an 80% reduction is not achievable without them, and Russia and India have another 10%.
7 May 2009 at 2:53 PM
Unlike some who say the USA should not do anything because no one else will, I have never personally heard one mainstream currently publishing climatologist (including many IPCC people) say this yet to my face(Lovelock does not to my knowlege publish anymore and I’ve never met him). There could obviously be some, however.
Instead, what I have heard, is, “Don’t even ask/answer the question, ‘is it too late. That is a useless question.’
Instead the answer is “that we have to do all we can with whatever we have so that we can lessen the impacts.”
Of course, I don’t speak for everyone. However, it’s an interesting useful attitude in my own personal opinion.
7 May 2009 at 3:08 PM
MikeN, China has mandated actions that will reduce the number of people.
When is your government going to tell people to stop banging?
NOTE: you haven’t even STARTED saving 80%. So to complain about how someone else is better off when you do is kind of idiotic.
7 May 2009 at 3:14 PM
Re:41
SecularAlarmist,
Like I posed previously to Jim Bouldin, do the analysis yourself (presumably free of the entanglements heaped on me), and come back with your own answer. And let’s see if it is any different than mine.
Why is only the economics of the legislation analyzed and not the climate impact–especially given that the impetus is altering the climate, and its ability to so is severely limited?
Why do you think the American people think that it is acceptable to subject themselves to a certain degree of economic risk, when there is no potential reward unless 6.5 billion (and growing) other people do the same thing (something that the growing majority of which are neither committed to, nor are particularly interested in)?
-Chip
[Response: Because in the absence of any action really bad things are likely to happen. Why not fish the last fish, cut down the last tree and burn the last lump of coal? Your philosophy is the same as the one that leads to Easter Island, or the collapse of the cod fishery - if no-one looks beyond their nose, they all crash into the wall. - gavin]
7 May 2009 at 3:25 PM
JBL @ 28
Yes, good point, tradable emissions rights are in principle a rational way to avoid a tragedy of unowned common air. We could give every person on the planet one right, and let the trading begin.
7 May 2009 at 3:32 PM
This is an interesting post that raises interesting questions to ponder, but like Chip, I’m a bit reluctant to follow all the conclusions of an imperfect analogy (after all, every analogy is imperfect).
As I see it, here’s the crux of the matter: I can certainly see merit in the general idea that the people who created a problem should be the first to step up to the plate with solutions for that problem, but the real question is, “What is the best way to solve the problem?” People who oppose Waxman-Markey and other similar measures often believe that the costs of these plans would greatly outweigh the benefits, and I think that’s a legitimate viewpoint that deserves rational analysis.
Some commenters have argued that renewable energy technology is sufficiently developed to provide for the world’s needs, and strictly speaking, this is probably true. The problem is, though, that renewable technologies are much more costly at the present time than fossil fuel technologies. If they weren’t, we would be seeing much more market share for wind, solar, and similar power plants. Thus, I see no way to drastically reduce carbon dioxide emissions without incurring tremendous costs that we CANNOT ignore.
Furthermore, I know that many experts have talked about the potential disproportionate effects of climate change on third world countries, but what about the effects of taking strong action to reduce carbon emissions? Maybe I’m way off base here, but it seems to me that Chip makes a convincing point that the developing economies of the world (China and India primarily) will be responsible for considerable emissions growth over the coming decades as they develop much better electricity infrastructure and industries. If we require these countries to make large cuts in fossil fuel use (which we will need to do if we want to reduce the future effects of climate change), their economic development will be severely hampered because they can’t afford large scale implementation of expensive power technologies. Thus, I’m not sure if it’s fair to talk about the potential devastating effects of climate change without also talking about the tremendous price that many people (including very poor people in third world countries) will need to pay to mitigate that change.
Maybe a deep analysis of these issues will still reveal that it is less costly to mitigate climate change than it is to adapt to its effects (I’m thinking of the Stern Review here, for example, which advocated this view), but I don’t see an overtly clear solution to the cost/benefit problem. A few years ago, I read a chapter in the book: “Public Policies for Environmental Protection (2nd Edition)” which found that even the Kyoto Protocol, which seemed to entail relatively modest emissions targets in comparison to some of the policies that we’re now discussing, may well be more costly than a business as usual scenario. If that’s true, I have to wonder if we’re in a situation where the necessary policies to mitigate climate change are far too costly, and the cheaper policies are ineffective for mitigating environmental problems.
In any event, don’t we need to have a reasonable discussion of these issues? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that it would be far more constructive to discuss the merits of these ideas rather than simply labelling anyone who believes them as “greedy,” “immoral,” “heartless,” or the like.
7 May 2009 at 3:33 PM
Why not link to Chip’s analysis so people can decide for themselves?
His numbers don’t match up with your probabilities in ‘hit the brakes hard’ I think.
[Response: It is linked - and he doesn’t include any uncertainties at all. - gavin]
7 May 2009 at 3:38 PM
Hank Roberts @ 30
You are mistaken that markets don’t give ownership of the future. Many do - forests are one example; and many corporations live longer than humans too. The key is tradability - people invest in such long term schemes, in the knowledge they can sell them on later should they then wish to spend on consumption.
The principle applies as much to natural resources as to man-made ones. The only issue is whether the property rights in question - eg of whales or fish - are sufficiently clearly delineated.
7 May 2009 at 3:49 PM
Alexandre @ 44 : That rationale (”Resources would gravitate to the most efficient use thereof.”) works well for products directly tradeable, but not for externalities (especially diffuse ones) or common-pool resources.
–
The whole idea is to MAKE the products tradeable. Once this happens, it does not matter who owns them at any given point.
And externality problems are neither better nor worse.
7 May 2009 at 3:56 PM
Bravo. The general outlines of this “do-nothing” argument are unfortunately widespread on blogsites; just this morning I was asked “Why should we give China a free pass on pollution? What is the advantage of letting Asian-made pollution pile up?”
Of course it’s a straw man, not to mention a “have you stopped beating your wife yet?” pseudo-question.
I find much of the denialist opposition’s emotional motivation somewhat similar to that of some of the opposition to Darwin: it would be “just too awful if it were true.”
But though we are in a daunting position, we are not helpless. We need to assert this fact forcibly and often.
7 May 2009 at 4:10 PM
Marc wrote: “The problem is, though, that renewable technologies are much more costly at the present time than fossil fuel technologies.”
No, they are not. Renewable technologies are already cost-competitive with fossil fuels. And that’s even now when fossil fuel technologies are artificially low-priced because the costs of carbon pollution are not internalized. That’s the whole point of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade: to end the free ride for polluters who are now able to foist the cost of their pollution onto everyone else.
Marc wrote: “If they weren’t, we would be seeing much more market share for wind, solar, and similar power plants.”
Wind turbines accounted for 42 percent of all newly installed electrical generating capacity in the USA in 2008, second only to natural gas for the fourth year in a row. Current market shares reflect many decades of a very uneven playing field that favored fossil fuel (and nuclear) technologies with all sorts of subsidies. But with wind and solar energy growing at record-breaking, double-digit rates every year, that will soon change. Within a few years, wind power will probably account for the majority of all new electrical generating capacity in the USA.
7 May 2009 at 4:15 PM
Rene, nope.
Pacific Lumber did longterm responsible management of the California redwoods.
Maxxam, the people who brought us the Sav ings and Lo an bail outs, brought their profits, bought out Pacific Lumber, and started clearcutting.
Markets don’t protect the future. They simply allow someone to gather the future up in a convenient and purchasable fashion.
Yes, some people do that with the intent of protecting the future.
Thoreau: “The measure of a man’s wealth is what he can afford to leave alone.”
And then you die. But markets don’t and corporations don’t — they accumulate deathlessly.
Many of us are trying to protect little bits of the world within the market system.
It’s ultimately hopeless unless someone finds a way we can give our little chunks of the world back to the world to keep going at its plodding 3 percent growth per year, and protect them from the gatherers.
But markets offer no protection for biological timescales.
I’m not saying anything does.
I’m saying the universe, as far as we know, is silent but for one ecosystem that’s had a couple hundred years of high-tech market-driven extraction.
If we continue as we’re going this planet goes silent too.
You can’t take it with you.
For a lot of us, the best we can hope for is to keep it away from the Knappenbergers for a while. Maybe someone will have a better idea.
7 May 2009 at 4:18 PM
Gavin,
Re: 54.
You are back to your diminishing resources argument again. This is not the issue and you know it—efforts like Waxman-Markey are aimed at making resources seem to be more diminishing than they actually are.
[Response: Perhaps you are purposely being obtuse? The issue is not the diminishing resources but the difference between individual short term profit at the expense of great collective loss. Fishery, climate change and forestry are classic cases of economic activity that reduces overall welfare while profiting a select few. The fisheries example is dramatic, but your kind of analysis would lead to exactly the same kind of irrational behaviour. Go ahead and make an argument that the expected costs are exaggerated - that would at least justify a policy of inaction to the extent that it could be supported, but by accepting the likely estimates of costs, your analysis and the conclusions being drawn from it are the height of irresponsibility. That extreme cynicism appalls me. - gavin]
Re: #57
True, I don’t provide any uncertainties, but I do provide links to the tools and assumptions that I used and invite people to fiddle with them as they see fit—they are not difficult to use or understand. I have twice invited commentors here to try their hand at their own analysis, and I extend that invitation to everyone else (as I did in my articles).
-Chip
7 May 2009 at 4:33 PM
Great article, Gavin! It reminds me of a sustainability course with the Cloud Institute, where we did a fish game similar to what you described. We - very committed considerate people - managed to kill our fish population 5 times before figuring out that we need to coordinate our efforts and set up certain rules to make sure that our fish population will survive.
It was amazing and scary to realize how hard it was to
1) Even realize the need to communicate even though we of course understood the problem, and
2) To come up with a rule that everybody agrees and sticks to.
It seems to me sometimes that we need to coordinate ourselves a lot better, agree on specific targets and on concrete ways to get there, before we can expect the politicians to do so.
One case in point: why not combine the separate guidelines of
7 May 2009 at 4:35 PM
There are certainly tensions between developing world states who want the rich world to cut first and most deeply and developed states concerned about seeing any emissions reductions they produce overwhelmed by growth in developing states.
Both positions have validity, and the mechanisms for resolving the views remain under debate. That being said, the outlines are clear. Every significant emitter will have to take action. Rich states need to start doing so first and more sharply. They also need to provide assistance to developing states, in the form of technology and funding. Through coordinated global action, dangerous climate change can be avoided, and the world economy can be set on a path where it maintains climatic stabiity in the long term.
7 May 2009 at 4:44 PM
Chip Knappenberger wrote: “You are back to your diminishing resources argument again. This is not the issue and you know it—efforts like Waxman-Markey are aimed at making resources seem to be more diminishing than they actually are.”
Wrong. Efforts like Waxman-Markey are aimed at forcing markets to accurately reflect the fact that the capacity of the Earth system to absorb carbon pollution without disastrous warming and climate change is, in fact, rapidly diminishing.
The “resource” in question is not the supply of fossil fuels. The “resource” in question — the “commons” that is at risk — is the Earth’s atmosphere, hydrosphere and biosphere and its capacity to absorb anthropogenic GHG emissions without severe harm. And that resource is rapidly being exhausted by our accelerating emissions.
What you seem to want to do is preserve a system aimed at making fossil fuels seem less costly than they really are.
What you seem to be overwhelming concerned with is protecting the ability of polluters to pollute with impunity, and to profit from their polluting activities while forcing the rest of us to bear the costs of their pollution.
Oddly enough, people who go on about cost-benefit analysis of reducing emissions are often those who expect to reap all the benefits and bear none of the costs of doing nothing.
7 May 2009 at 5:01 PM
Well Chip,
I must congratulate you. You have done one thing that I could not achieve. You have persuaded Gavin that if we stay on the current course we are heading for disaster, just like the Easter Islanders.
The first thing we must do is abondon the idea of return to growth after this recession is over. Growth means burning more fossil fuels and we are already burning too many.
Here in the UK we are planning to cut our fossil fuel burning by 80%. Why can’t the US match us? But that is a waste of time because our total fuel consumption is less than the growth in the US during the last ten years. The US burns 25% of the worls annual production of oil. Unless it cuts back it is useless the rest of the world taking action.
7 May 2009 at 5:08 PM
Gavin (re: #63)
I am not very comfortable arguing about the expected economic costs, but I do frequently argue about the expected climate costs, which I think are overestimated. But that topic was not the point of my articles. I showed that even under scenarios with high climate cost, the benefit of U.S. emissions reductions (absent the development of readily transferable and accepted new technologies) was extremely low—and thus focusing effort on U.S. emissions is grossly misplaced. If we are looking for innovation, lets support research efforts aimed at innovating, but in the meantime, why make Americans make energy sacrifices when, in and of themselves, they will not produce any (climate) good? Can’t we innovate without sacrifice?
-Chip
[Response: As long as it is free to emit CO2, no innovation to prevent CO2 emissions can possibly compete (with the sole exception of efficiency gains, but that is insufficient). Demanding ‘innovation’ without giving it any economic incentive is like demanding ice cream without being bothered to go to the freezer. Nice in theory, but non-existent in practice. - gavin]
7 May 2009 at 6:16 PM
“SecularAlarmist, Like I posed previously to Jim Bouldin, do the analysis yourself (presumably free of the entanglements heaped on me), and come back with your own answer. And let’s see if it is any different than mine.
Yes Chip, we would get the same answer if we did the same thing you did. Computers are predictable that way. And it would be, I’m sorry, GIGO (garbage in-garbage out) if we did. Because your conceptual model excludes some of the most fundamental points that you should have asked before crunching numbers, viz: (1) what socio-political dynamics are possible/likely to occur if important nations take responsibility with decisive actions, (2) how will the increasing certainty of the science at smaller and smaller scales influence nations’ self-interested climate mitigation behavior as they see what’s in store for them (3) how will the economic value of carbon injected into the atmosphere change in response to same, etc. etc.
Always remember to line up the nail before you hit it with the hammer. Otherwise you just end up hurting yourself.
7 May 2009 at 6:17 PM
Marc writes:
Only if you don’t count the economic damage caused by fossil fuel technologies. Once you internalize those costs — e.g. via a cap-and-trade scheme or a carbon tax — renewable suddenly looks a lot better.
7 May 2009 at 6:42 PM
Well, Alastair,
Join the club.
During the past 5 years (2001-2006), growth in China’s CO2 emissions have amounted to about 50% of our (the U.S.) total emissions (which have grown by only 2-3% over that time) (data on international emissions from the EIA). So, China is on course to do to us, what we are doing to you—that is fully replacing our national emissions by their new emissions alone in only a decade.
Thus the problem…
-Chip
7 May 2009 at 6:54 PM
It looks more and more like Malthus might be vindicated after all.
7 May 2009 at 7:03 PM
Alastair says: “Growth means burning more fossil fuels”.
I think we can leave it at that. This is the standard PR mantra that the fossil fuel industry has been pumping out ever since the 1970s, and it is demonstrably false. Real economic growth, the kind that is consistent with ecological stability, requires abandoning fossil fuel combustion in favor of renewable energy development.
In any case, Chip’s comments are distortions of basic economic theories, but that goes for much 20th century economic propaganda. For example, the “Tragedy of the Commons” theme is just a simplistic ripoff of the complex economic themes described by Adam Smith, but as seen through the distorting lens of social Darwinism, another non-scientific theory of economics, from the linked 1968 article (#45):
First, that’s a 19th-century view of evolutionary theory, applied out of context at that. This is the “tragedy of the commons”, all about greedy short-sighted people being unable to share any common goods, thus necessitating private ownership of everything. It’s nonsense cooked up by some mathematician in 1833 - and to prove it, here are some direct quotes from The Wealth of Nations on the issue, which Smith delved into in detail:
“On enclosure: In an open country too, of which the principal produce is corn, a well-enclosed piece of grass will frequently rent higher than any corn field in its neighbourhood. It is convenient for the maintenance of the cattle employed in the cultivation of the corn, and its high rent is, in this case, not so properly paid from the value of its own produce as from that of the corn lands which are cultivated by means of it. It is likely to fall, if ever the neighbouring lands are completely enclosed. The present high rent of enclosed land in Scotland seems owing to the scarcity of enclosure, and will probably last no longer than that scarcity. The advantage of enclosure is greater for pasture than for corn. It saves the labour of guarding the cattle, which feed better, too, when they are not liable to be disturbed by their keeper or his dog.“
Italics added - but notice that the tragedy of the commons assumes that the only possible use of pastureland is for grazing meat animals. Smith tackled this in earnest:
book 1 wealth of nations
“A cornfield of moderate fertility produces a much greater quantity of food for man than the best pasture of equal extent. Though its cultivation requires much more labour, yet the surplus which remains after replacing the seed and maintaining all that labour, is likewise much greater. If a pound of butcher’s meat, therefore, was never supposed to be worth more than a pound of bread, this greater surplus would everywhere be of greater value, and constitute a greater fund both for the profit of the farmer and the rent of the landlord…”
So, if there is such high demand for pasture, a shift towards corn production will likely occur.
“But the relative values of those two different species of food, bread and butcher’s meat, are very different in the different periods of agriculture. In its rude beginnings, the unimproved wilds, which then occupy the far greater part of the country, are all abandoned to cattle. There is more butcher’s meat than bread, and bread, therefore, is the food for which there is the greatest competition, and which consequently brings the greatest price.”
There, Smith introduces supply-demand concepts in a more complex frame - and notice how that frame progresses naturally towards ecological concepts (why could the ‘unimproved wilds’ support cattle? or fish?).
“It is thus that in the progress of improvement the rent and profit of unimproved pasture come to be regulated in some measure by the rent and profit of what is improved, and these again by the rent and profit of corn. Corn is an annual crop. Butcher’s meat, a crop which requires four or five years to grow.”
Now, let’s apply this Adam Smith reasoning to fossil fuels vs. renewable energy - what is the better use of limited land and material, the construction of renewable energy platforms that require only sun and wind, or the construction of fossil fuel platforms that require a constant stream of mined raw material?
Do the analysis yourself, Chip, and see what you come up with - no matter which way you look at it, fossil fuels are economic losers.
“As an acre of land, therefore, will produce a much smaller quantity of the one species of food than of the other, the inferiority of the quantity must be compensated by the superiority of the price. If it was more than compensated, more corn land would be turned into pasture; and if it was not compensated, part of what was in pasture would be brought back into corn.”
If we were to strip away all government subsidies from fossil fuel and include the full cost of fossil fuel use in the price, it would quickly become clear that renewables are the winning economic option.
Sorry for the length of the post, but the Adam Smith quotes are needed - The Wealth of Nations must be one of the most-distorted texts in history.
7 May 2009 at 7:21 PM
Chip Knappenberger wrote @54: “Why do you think the American people think that it is acceptable to subject themselves to a certain degree of economic risk, when there is no potential reward unless 6.5 billion (and growing) other people do the same thing (something that the growing majority of which are neither committed to, nor are particularly interested in)?”
You need to update your talking points:
Is China ready to act on climate? Part 2: The green dragon is considering a carbon tax and a major carbon intensity target
http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/06/china-carbon-tax-carbon-intensity-target/
7 May 2009 at 7:24 PM
“Friends of Fish”?
Troy McClure unavailable for comment.
7 May 2009 at 7:41 PM
>what is the better use of limited land and material, the construction of renewable energy platforms that require only sun and wind, or the construction of fossil fuel platforms that require a constant stream of mined raw material?
Don’t coal and nuclear power plants occupy less land than equivalent amount of solar and wind generation?
7 May 2009 at 7:43 PM
I suspect the denialists would be quite happy if the nations of the world continued to view this as a zero-sum game. However, I would contend that is not the right game model. It is rather more like the repeated trials of The Prisoner’s dilemma. The atmosphere doesn’t give a rat’s posterior whether a CO2 molecule comes from the US or China or Africa. What matters is the total amount of CO2 emitted.
The US, Europe and Japan find themselves with a fossil fuel intensive legacy economy. It is unlikely that we can shift to renewables as quickly as a country where the energy infrastructure is still being built. By all means, we must worry about emissions from the developing world, but if we wish them to limit carbon emissions, we will have to help them develop alternatives. Reducing carbon emissions is not optional. It has to happen. We had best figure out a way to do so.
7 May 2009 at 8:01 PM
Seriously, you just “discovered” the tragedy of the commons?
7 May 2009 at 8:08 PM
Mr Knappenberger wrote:
“Why do you think the American people think that it is acceptable to subject themselves to a certain degree of economic risk, when there is no potential reward unless 6.5 billion (and growing) other people do the same thing (something that the growing majority of which are neither committed to, nor are particularly interested in)?”
As others have pointed out, China is acting to encourage renewables and limit fossil carbon emission.
But, sadder yet, Mr. Knappenberger has failed Rabbi Hillel’s moral test. Let us hope that the rest of us do better.
“And if I am only for myself, what am I? If not
you, who? And if not now, when?”"
7 May 2009 at 8:17 PM
Re: #68
Gavin,
We sent people to the moon with concentrated, directed effort and without sacrifice from the general population. It seems like we came up a large-scale nuclear reaction with the same type of program…sure we were stressed at the time, but not for the purpose of creating the bomb. The populace at large was not operating under forced economic incentives to aid in the success of those programs.
Nor were they, for that matter, when the freezer was invented to keep their ice cream in. :^)
-Chip
7 May 2009 at 8:28 PM
Re: #69
Jim,
Where was the “line up the nail before you hit it” comment when Wigley published his analysis of the impacts of the Kyoto Protocol using similar methodology as I used?
Wigley, T.M.L., 1998. The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4 and climate implications. Geophysical Research Letters, 25, 2285-2288.
Or when the IPCC was drawing up their SRES scenarios? All I did was take an SRES scenario (drawn up by people far more knowledgeable than myself on that issue), and modified the U.S. assumptions to account for Waxman-Markey’s proposed programs. And, I did the same analysis with the whole world doing the same thing! So I covered the entire range of actions applied to the most extreme SRES scenario (A1FI).
I think if you think about it, it is my analysis that you don’t like, but my interpretation of the results.
-Chip
7 May 2009 at 8:28 PM
It looks more and more like Malthus might be vindicated after all.
It’s so long ago that I read the terrible line, “Malthus waits” that I can’t remember where I first saw it.
7 May 2009 at 8:37 PM
@ Nicolas Nierenberg: The word “discover” doesn’t appear anywhere in the article or in the comments — who are you talking to?
7 May 2009 at 8:42 PM
Ray is correct. Climate change is a multi-player repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma. This is why we need an international environmental agreement, to transform the Prisoner’s Dilemma into a different game. To do this, there will need to be some credible penalties for non-participation and non-compliance — to prevent countries doing things like the US, where they agreed to a target at Kyoto, and then refused to ratify.
The Montreal Protocol on reducing ozone depleting substance succeeded in doing this. One of the reasons was that it also regulated the trade of ozone depleting substances, so countries that did not comply or participate were unable to trade in them.
7 May 2009 at 8:58 PM
“Die, Humans! Is Mother Nature Sick of Us?”:
http://www.livescience.com/environment/090507-earth-fed-up.html
Lovelock gloomy; Peter Ward gloomier still.
7 May 2009 at 10:53 PM
Chip,
I suggest you and the fossil fuel industry invest heavily in building a time machine so that when this planet’s fossil fuel stocks are thoroughly depleted, the oceans acidified, and the atmosphere overheated, you can take all your oil revenue back to a cleaner, simpler time… say 1946?
For clues on how to build such a device, I suggest you watch re-runs of “The Time Tunnel” on Hulu.com
7 May 2009 at 10:57 PM
You’re seriously saying that my parents weren’t taxed, or the deficit increased therefore taxing me, to fund the Manhattan Project?
Please.
Don’t visit your stupid on us.
So let’s see … in Chip’s world there were no forced rationing on the American public, the draft didn’t exist (a huge percentage of those involved in the industrial side of building the infrastructure making the bomb possible were drafted into the Army), etc etc.
Comments …
7 May 2009 at 11:20 PM
Marc #56 and Chip Knappenberger #68 wonder in good faith about the scale of the enterprise and the willingness of China and others to work as hard as we do at reducing CO2 emissions. Many others are wondering the same thing. Now that the tragedy of the commons has been so powerfully been brought to bear in the rhetorical battle, maybe it’s time to plan what is to be done.
Clearly formulating a problem often suggests the solution. Coal emissions are the problem, but that’s still too vague a formulation. The solution can’t be to ban coal (as we did CFCs) because coal is indispensable in the next 20 years for power generation in the US, and especially in China. Intermittent sources, such as wind and solar, are not a satisfactory replacement for coal as baseload power, and they have unsolved storage problems. The conclusion is that we are stuck for now with the pulverized coal fleet on which our grid depends. Plug-in cars will mean even more dependency on coal power.
So, more specifically formulating the problem: post-combustion CO2 capture and disposal retrofittable to existing pulverized coal plants. Let’s focus on the two elements: capture and disposal.
Presently, we have chemical capture (amine or chilled ammonia scrubbing) which has worked for natural gas but will probably not work with flue gas because of the large (75% of volume) N2 fraction (”nitrogen ballast”) which complicates makes mixing the chemicals in. Heat-stable salts scale the heat exchange surfaces. Fly ash sludge is another problem. Compressing the huge volumes of hot and dirty flue gas, with its nitrogen ballast, to liquefy the CO2 is obviously out of the question. Here is an alternative capture method: vortex gas separation by mechanically forced von Karman swirling flow in an open system. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0013867.pdf
Disposal of the captured CO2 by underground dumping (”sequestration” to the snobs) is used deep under the ocean by natural gas producers, and it is being studied for use in the continental US. Sequestration would require an enormous pipeline infrastructure, and the liability issues for lethal gas storage are still unresolved. The GAO report on sequestration is not encouraging:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081080.pdf
Other than sequestration, there is mineralization, such as the Calera process which turns CO2 into CaCO3 for cement. But mineralization is slow, and the volumes of CO2 to be processed are huge, to say nothing of the nitrogen ballast mixed with the CO2. Remember, we are talking about a dilute and dirty stream of CO2, not a pure stream in a laboratory.
An alternative to sequestration and mineralization is cracking the CO2 to make CO. The bond dissociation energy for taking off the first oxygen is 5.5 eV — in the same neighborhood as water electrolysis. Simultaneous CO2 and water electrolysis (”syntrolysis”) produces syngas (CO + H2) which can be burned or processed into vehicle fuel. So there is a way to make CO2 into a resource instead of a waste product. The difficulty is the energy required, which cannot come from fossil fuels because they emit more CO2 than they can crack.
The solution is to use wind and solar energy to crack coal CO2. They could also crack the NOx and SOx at the same time. This gets solar and wind widely deployed while preserving the baseload power of coal. CO2 becomes the longed-for energy storage medium for renewables. Wind and solar are too intermittent to be relied on for baseload power, and wind is abundant at night, when there is already plenty of spinning reserve from coal and nuclear, so it would go to waste if not used for cracking. Hybrid power generation is how to reduce CO2 emissions while deploying wind and solar as fast as possible, without compromising the grid.
So, Chip, there’s a way to innovate without sacrifice — turn CO2 into a resource. Then China and everyone will rush to adopt the solution that Americans have shown.
[edit - no advertising]
7 May 2009 at 11:51 PM
Chip Knappenberger quoth here:
“So, the issue before us today is not really the same as you describe about cod fishing. If it were, neither of us would likely be involved. Instead, it is about reasons why we should stop using the resources we currently have.”
Stop using them? Why not go the Biblical route?
42They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
7 May 2009 at 11:58 PM
Hank Roberts @ 49
> Whale harvest and the commons The harvesting of whales is an
> example of the economics of the commons. …. The blue whale was
> reduced to an estimated few hundred individuals before harvesting
> was stopped in the 1960s….
This is because the whales were not owned. If they became farm animals like any other, they would be as unlikely to face extinction as chickens and cattle are.
7 May 2009 at 11:58 PM
Chip Knappenberger Says (7 May 2009 at 15:14)
“Why do you think the American people think that it is acceptable to subject themselves to a certain degree of economic risk, when there is no potential reward unless 6.5 billion (and growing) other people do the same thing…”
Why do you think there is no reward other than the CO2 reduction? Take an example from my own experience. I drive a car that gets a bit over 70 mpg, while the stereotypical US SUV gets about 14 mpg - almost exactly that 80% reduction in CO2 footprint. Apart from that, I derive immediate and ongoing rewards. My car costs less than half as much to buy as the SUV, and far less to run, which rewards my wallet. There’s time saved: I visit gas stations less frequently, it’s easier to find parking, etc. There are less tangible rewards, too. Increased security, since I don’t have to worry nearly as much about gasoline price increases; the fun of driving a zippy two-seater rather than a lumbering SUV, and more.
8 May 2009 at 12:22 AM
Hank Roberts @ 62
> Pacific Lumber did longterm responsible management of the
> California redwoods. Maxxam…bought out Pacific Lumber, and
> started clearcutting.
Harvesting trees is not necessarily irresponsible.
> Markets don’t protect the future. They simply allow someone to
> gather the future up in a convenient and purchasable fashion.
They offer as much protection of the future as people want and are prepared to pay for.
8 May 2009 at 1:03 AM
> Ike Solem @ 73
Contrary to your claims, the tragedy of an unowned commons is very real, not just PR or a corruption of Adam Smith. This is simply because, while there IS an incentive to preserve owned resources, there ISN’T an incentive to preserve unowned ones.
8 May 2009 at 1:15 AM
>China is acting to encourage renewables and limit fossil carbon emission.
They are building solar and wind, true, but they are also building 2 coal plants a week. Total added capacity in coal, 80 GW in one year.
If they keep growing at 10 percent a year, then by 2025, they will have passed the US in per capita numbers as well.
8 May 2009 at 1:46 AM
Hello everyone,
I have four daughters, they’re lovely girls. My eldest though, when she was about ten years old, changed from being a neat and tidy person, to having a bedroom that looked like the local tip. Indeed, at one time there were mice nesting in the debris. That was annoying, but even more so when it was one my own jackets that had been “borrowed” in which these mice had made their home.
When her parents regained their sense of proportion and control we decided that a dirty bedroom is not to be tolerated, it’s not a matter of individual freedom, but of family (i.e. community) responsibility to keep our home habitable. When we tried to deal with the matter, this daughter pointed to the sign she had written and placed on the door, which stated “Why should I keep my bedroom tidy, when the world’s in such a mess?”
Which, superficially at least, seems like a fair point. But of course, we weren’t the only parents to face such an argument, indeed one could buy such signs to place on the door. Fortunately, even parents with the meanest intellect, like us, eventually sort that one out.
The answer is quite simple. And it’s this. If one makes a mess, then it’s the responsibility of the person making the mess to clean it up. It’s not always a welcome reply, but it’s the only one that makes any intellectual, emotional and ethical sense. Because there’s no injunction on anyone to tidy up, clean up, or otherwise accommodate anyone else who isn’t responsible for their own actions. The only exception to this rule is dealing with the mentally disturbed or the intellectually disabled.
Millions of parents around the world worked this all out years ago, and the logic is understood by millions of children with equal force.
So what ails the intellects of all those around those around the world who still cannot understand this?
8 May 2009 at 2:30 AM
re 76: people don’t want their homes, their places of work or their food being grown near a nuclear plant. Likewise, they won’t put their homes next to a coal power station and farmers will have to spend money undoing the damage done by the effluvium if the food for human consumption is grown there.
So these power plants have a lot of ground that is unusable unless you demand people go there.
8 May 2009 at 3:11 AM
Re#76, MikeN. For the actual land use estimate of a coal plant, you first have to include the coal mine, coal mine, mountaintop removal, etc. Pulverized coal power plants burn on the order of 10 million tons of coal per year. You also have to include the emissions - particulate aerosols, mercury, and sulfur, and the effects - acid rain, persistent mercury accumulation in fish, acid rain across the Northeast, and air pollution all across the western deserts and the Rockies. Then, there is the sheer volume of fly ash to deal with,
If you take 10 million tons of coal, how many rail car loads is that? At 100 tons/load, that is 100,000 car loads - now, do that for 30 years, the expected lifetime of silicon solar panels. How much land does that cover? Now, add on the pollution blanket.
Now, we can do a side-by-side lifetime cycle comparison for similar coal and renewable energy projects in gigawatt-hours or joules, or anything convenient.
On one side you have a solar and/or wind plant that covers a large area, but which can coexist with residential/industrial land (solar) and agricultural land (wind). On the other, you have the coal plant, the cooling water/steam supply (2-4 billion gallons per year), and 300 million tons of coal.
For solar, the necessary area would depend on two major factors - the efficiency of the panels in converting sunlight to electricity (pushing 20% for affordable commercial silicon, twice that for expensive satellite technology), and one’s location on the planet:
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2007-11-28-worlds-sunniest-spots-hint-at-energy-bonanza
Unlike a coal plant, the with a solar plant the whole fuel cycle is provided for free by the sun, as modulated by local climate conditions, and there is no waste stream to deal with under daily operation - only during initial manufacturing.
8 May 2009 at 3:36 AM
The ability of renewables to co-exist with agriculture has also been demonstrated:
French farmer is new sun king
Tue Feb 24, 2009 Reuters
For the above 4,000 homes, that is just nine square meters per home. That ratio alone indicates that solar is easily capable of meeting residential electricity needs across a vast swathe of the world. On the large scale, 5 square kilometers of solar, using current technology, would generate as much as a typical 500 MW coal-fired plant. So, if we consider the land use issues, pollution issues, and energy issues, it is clear that renewables can replace solar with clear benefits - but can it meet financial requirements? Can large investments for big solar projects be paid back to banks, in other words?
This is addressed in the French farmer’s plan:
In California, we’ve seen long-term electricity contracts signed by political leaders - not to promote renewable energy, but rather to promote the efficiency of the newly deregulated energy markets, in which Enron was playing a large and manipulative role.
A Lost Opportunity That Worsened Crisis: Utilities and federal regulators shut the door on renewable power in California
Susan Sward, Chronicle Staff Writer, Monday, February 12, 2001
Notice that the crisis was as much about bad economic choices made by government leaders as it was about market manipulation by energy traders. The manipulation was only made possible by the deregulation of Samuel Insull’s ‘natural monopolies’ - but if renewables had been developed, market gaming would not have been possible. In the end, the market manipulation ended up driving several PG&E and Southern Edison subsidiaries into bankruptcy - as well as driving the entire state into debt, thanks in part to those long-term energy contracts for natural gas and electricity.
Consider an analogous ‘tragedy of the commons situation’: As pressure for herding on limited land grows, corn farmers point out that they can grow more food per acre - but the herders band together with local government officialdom to prevent farmers from taking over any land (and possibly crashing the price of beef). The engineered lack of competition then allows a deliberate run-up in the price of beef - and the market has no choice but to pay or starve. Regardless, say several economists, the problem is that the deregulation didn’t go far enough…
Is there a relevant Adam Smith quote? Yes, we just have to replace the word “clergy” with the modern analogue:
“But if we consider the matter more closely, we shall find that this interested diligence of the [academic economist] is what every wise legislator will study to prevent; because in every religion except the true it is highly pernicious, and it has even a natural tendency to pervert the true, by infusing into it a strong mixture of superstition, folly, and delusion.”
“Each ghostly practitioner, in order to render himself more precious and sacred in the eyes of his retainers, will inspire them with the most violent abhorrence of all other sects, and continually endeavour, by some novelty, to excite the languid devotion of his audience. No regard will be paid to truth, morals, or decency in the doctrines inculcated.”
Not to end there, Smith continues:
“And in the end, the civil magistrate will find… that in reality the most decent and advantageous composition which he can make with the spiritual guides, is to bribe their indolence by assigning stated salaries to their profession, and rendering it superfluous for them to be farther active than merely to prevent their flock from straying in quest of new pastures.”
8 May 2009 at 4:34 AM
The UK only produces 2% of global emmissions.
So there is no point in us in the UK doing anything - is there?
8 May 2009 at 4:52 AM
MikeN writes:
True for solar. For wind, you can still use the land in a windfarm, and there are increasing numbers of wind sites that are being used to grow crops right under the wind turbines.
8 May 2009 at 5:05 AM
Re #73, Fossil fuel is intensive today, the demand for all three is growing outside of a recession which will not last that much longer until BAU is resumed. If only the idea that fossil fuels could be replaced simply and cost effectively in a mitigating climate change time frame was even known and understood then fine but is it not is it? When you look at a graph of energy usage you can see the playing field is distorted by fossil fuels which provide over 80% of our present energy needs globally and of which the USA is a primary user (and waster of such fuels). The economic and political landscape is awash with it, lobbyists and public sentiment as reliant on it, our culture of prosperity and progress and capatalism means of bettering yourself which is ingrained in western thinking is increasing their usage, their is no plan for renewable energy as yet, no grand plan at all as yet. We are all awaiting this years meeting for a post kyoto treaty but regardless its a long haul even if they all agree to mitigate carbon emissions but do not expect politicians to point out to the electorate that our present standards of living are up for negotiation. The USA has been to war and still is some say for that expression of its cultural lifestyle.
The present rate by which low carbon energy is being deployed in just far too low to have any 2 ppmv effect on AGW. Its needs to be a lot bigger, probably 3x as much as it is now. Electricity we can generate by low emissions means I am sure of it but gas and oil usage is a different ball game and its doubtful it can be done in time to stop us from using it all so its 450 ppmv minimum over a longer period of time as we have to target coal.
Difficult decisions to be made globally.
8 May 2009 at 5:40 AM
CO2 emissions are a problem for the entire world. Thus, barring truly effective international agreements, each nation should strive to work out an incentive scheme which fines CO2 emissions and rewards reducing such emissions.
And the nations who come up with the best schemes will be rewarded - not only will they be more energy-efficient (thus saving a lot of money in the long run), but they will also be able to sell their technology and expertise to other nations who are lagging behind in this field - such as large swathes of the United States.
8 May 2009 at 6:07 AM
I’m not sure I understand all this talk about how much it’s going to cost to cut carbon emissions. I’ve been working on saving mine for some years, and I’m saving a LOAD of cash!
For instance:
Not insisting that the house be a steady 70 degrees all year round, resetting the thermostat just a few degrees every now and then to reflect the outside temperature.
Cutting travel miles by combining trips: this saves a surprising amount of time as well!
Car sharing to and from work. A bit bothersome to set up, but I now enjoy the company. The rush hour doesn’t seem nearly so bad when you have somebody to rant with.
And a lot more stuff. There’s nothing that impacts on the quality of my life except to make it better, yet I’m saving shedloads of money! So who are these people who are going to be so much poorer from cutting emissions?
8 May 2009 at 6:16 AM
“The UK only produces 2% of global emmissions.
So there is no point in us in the UK doing anything - is there?”
We have only 1% of the people.
And if that 2% is so insignificant, it should be easy to forego, shouldn’t it!
8 May 2009 at 6:16 AM
> 98 Ike Solem
> Can large investments for big solar projects be paid back to banks
Bottom line question is : how much more will it cost? Five times now? Ten? Twenty?
> Consider an analogous ‘tragedy of the commons situation’: As
> pressure for herding on limited land grows, corn farmers point
> out that they can grow more food per acre - but the herders band
> together with local government officialdom to prevent farmers
> from taking over any land The engineered lack of competition
> then allows a deliberate run-up in the price of beef - and the
> market has no choice but to pay or starve.
The root problem here is the officialdom that obstructs rather than facilitates tradeable ownership of the land, thereby engineering a lack of competition.
8 May 2009 at 6:17 AM
Well done again Gavin. I admire your tenacity. I have begun wondering whether it’s time to start writing the eulogy for much of human civilisation. We are facing a slowly evolving catastrophe of our own making and a person with the IQ of a moron would be better at tackling it than than all the people on the planet combined!
Re. Zeke Hausfather at #2 and Chip Knappenberger at #1
As there is considerable determination among large European nations to address climate change, the US will be going it alone. A genuine determination to shoulder “more than their fair share” (if you choose to define it as such) of the burden and aim for equal per capita emissions in the long run will bring enormous moral force to the table to fully involve India and China in the medium term.
These two nations each have more people dependent on land within 1-2 metres of sea level than Bangladesh. They have far more to lose than the Western powers than are responsible for this mess. they cannot afford to let their own pollution drown their citizens.
I wish my own nation would come to the party! Hint: It starts with Aus and it isn’t Austria.
8 May 2009 at 6:21 AM
“They are building solar and wind, true, but they are also building 2 coal plants a week. Total added capacity in coal, 80 GW in one year.”
And china per capita is HOW MUCH less than USian or even British per-capita?
If we all go for a “fair share” of fossil fuel burning, we in the developed world will use LESS because we use more than our fair share and those using less than their fair share will go UP.
Now, if we reduce the “fair share” to 80% of the average, those above the average will make a GREATER THAN 80% cut and those at 1/5th the average will still “have to” increase their production to reach that same level.
8 May 2009 at 6:26 AM
Renee, #90: “This is because the whales were not owned. If they became farm animals like any other, they would be as unlikely to face extinction as chickens and cattle are.”
Uh, may I point you to Mad Cow Disease and Salmonella Chicken (and H5N1!)?
That which is owned is abused by its owner if they can get short-term gain from it.
Just look at the “killer” CEO’s who come in to a company, fire staff and run out while the stock price is high. The problem is that here (as with vast pooling of any other “ownership” of resources) is that the renumeration they get is so large that even critical damage will not remduce the benefit to pauper status. The Shareholder in the company loses $10,000 from his $100,000 investment portfolio, but the company worker loses his livelihood and the CEO gets a new contract with another company.
8 May 2009 at 7:14 AM
Mr Knappenberger at 18:
“This is where I, as a climatologist, come in. My analysis, using accepted emissions scenarios and accepted modeling tools, shows that Waxman-Markey will not address the issue of mitigating projected climate change. We need significant contributions from the rest of the world—actually, not just significant, but we need the vast majority of the emissions reductions to come from the developing nations of the world.”
That’s pretty much “Tragedy of the Commons” in a nut shell.
In Australia the argument made by the mining lobby is that domestic action without international action will make no difference. If every major polluter takes this approach we are all but guaranteed a catastrophe.
Look at the impeccable logic:
IF I act and no one else acts, THEN it will make no difference AND there will be a catastrophe. HENCE I will not act.
There is simply nothing more to this insanity.
8 May 2009 at 8:25 AM
This underlying self-interested rationality of (one side of) this debate reminds me of a two line cartoon, which paraphrased would go:
“We simply can’t afford to save the planet.”
“But we can afford to destroy it.”
8 May 2009 at 8:38 AM
#83, This was a figure of speach. I didn’t think I had to be that subtle. What Gavin wrote about has been understood about the issue for at least 30 years. There is no “we” to fix the problem.
8 May 2009 at 8:44 AM
>> Renee, #90: If [whales] became farm animals like any other, they
>> would be as unlikely to face extinction as chickens and cattle
>> are.”
> #108 Mark : Uh, may I point you to Mad Cow Disease and
> Salmonella Chicken (and H5N1!)? That which is owned is abused by
> its owner if they can get short-term gain from it.
Neither cows nor chickens face extinction, these mishaps notwithstanding. With the odd exception, people do not knowingly or deliberately abuse their own own property, since this is self-defeating. Do you knowingly or deliberately abuse your own property? Surely not.
> Just look at the “killer” CEO’s who come in to a company, fire
> staff and run out while the stock price is high. The problem is
> that here (as with vast pooling of any other “ownership” of
> resources) is that the renumeration they get is so large that
> even critical damage will not remduce the benefit to pauper
> status. The Shareholder in the company loses $10,000 from his
> $100,000 investment portfolio, but the company worker loses his
> livelihood and the CEO gets a new contract with another company.
This simply ignores viability and efficiency. If the company was healthy, there would be no need to fire anyone in the first place, and shareholders would not be losing out. Doing nothing in these situations would typically mean EVERYONE eventually loses their job, and shareholders lose EVERYTHING. It’s a damage limitation exercise, that’s what the killer CEO is there to carry out.
8 May 2009 at 8:49 AM
“Here in the UK we are planning to cut our fossil fuel burning by 80%.”
The fact that this promise does not appear to be made in good faith, may not make it useless. Perhaps following #67, the UK should wave its (originally bogus) target around in order to apply pressure to the US to persuade it to follow our example. In return our American and Chinese colleagues might try to make the UK keep its word. This would be a beneficial many body effect. Up till now the opposite has been happening. Multilateral decarbonisation is like multilateral nuclear disarmament. It can have either sign.
Here is a possible analogue. An announcement of a conference is circulated containing the names of several distinguished contributors. This is completely new to the individuals concerned, but they are attracted by seeing the other names on the list. With luck the project is a success.
8 May 2009 at 8:49 AM
Chip at 80
“The populace at large was not operating under forced economic incentives to aid in the success of those programs.”
In fact they were. Neither program paid for itself. Both required public funding which was ultimately derived through taxation from the populace at large. Taxation is another word for “forced economic incentives”, as in “carbon tax” or “pollution permit cost” - passed on to the consumer.
8 May 2009 at 8:56 AM
Re: Lawrence at 72 and Jeffrey at 82:
“It looks more and more like Malthus might be vindicated after all.”
Actually I think it will be Meadows et al’s Limits to Growth that will ultimately be vindicated.
We are certainly on track:
http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf
The fundamental difference with Malthus is that it is not a single problem that overwhelmes us but a simultaneous confluence of problems that together overwhelm society’s adaptive & technological prowess. Climate change is just one of those problems.
8 May 2009 at 8:59 AM
Re #104, UK historical emissions are high regardless of present emission levels. The USA is historically higher and presently high so they know they have to do more than us, a lot more. UK consumes 1.7 Mbpd of oil and the USA 20. 5x the population but 10x the oil. They use it for all sort of things though to be fair, heating, making stuff (lots of it) etc.
The true significance of climate change lies in the wests culture driven way of life. China for example is making stuff for global markets but a lot of it for us in the west. 1.3 billion population means cheaper goods and services in line with the global economic system even though they are shipped a long way. India with its 1.1 billion occupants can also produce cheaply and hence western investment continues unabated. If the fuel is available they will continue to grow at 3% per annum for the forseeable future, decades.
Its not our fuels that are the problem, more the rate of consumption of everything it mines, extracts and makes. 70 million vehicles go onto world roads every year, thats close to a billion more every decade and they are presently coming out as diesel and petrol. How long before we see 850 million vehicles presently out there growing by 70 million per year in this format. Alternative energy cars will not impact 50% of car both present and future for many decades. Its like electric cars have to fight for market share with carbon cars?!! How daft is that is climate change is a concern. They are not going to be that much better are they ?
8 May 2009 at 9:00 AM
“Neither cows nor chickens face extinction,”
So? It certainly cause several farmers to lose their livelihoods and many more would have been made penniless if it weren’t for government schemes to bail them out.
8 May 2009 at 9:04 AM
“This simply ignores viability and efficiency. ”
Yup, it does.
But the average number of directorship and similar posts held by a board of the directors of Nortel Networks is five.
So if Nortel go belly-up (like John Ross made it do), the directors are AT WORST 20% down on their salary. What did JR get? a $6M bonus payment. Why? Because it wasn’t the Board’s money.
Neither cared about efficiency or viability.
See also Darl Mc Bride in SCO (in fact any spinoff branch from a company Ray Noorda owns).
8 May 2009 at 9:07 AM
Sorry in 106 that should be, “As there is considerable determination among large European nations to address climate change, the US will NOT be going it alone.”
8 May 2009 at 9:14 AM
Ike those rail cars aren’t piling up across the landscape, so you can’t use that as an estimate of land usage for a coal plant. The coal mines
are fixed, and serve multiple plants. I don’t see what acid rain has to do with land area. BY that logic I should complain about mercury from CFLs poisoning Chinese workers or that the Prius battery factory is an environmental disaster in Canada.
If one makes a mess, then it’s the responsibility of the person making the mess to clean it up.
Now, if we reduce the “fair share” to 80% of the average, those above the average will make a GREATER THAN 80% cut and those at 1/5th the average will still “have to” increase their production to reach that same level.
8 May 2009 at 9:16 AM
China’s coal electricity sector is about 80% of the US, and growing.
With its current growth rates her per capita numbers may surpass the US by 2025.
This would be like the largest fisherman having a large family, and if he doesn’t cut back significantly the fish will go extinct.
8 May 2009 at 9:31 AM
And their population 400% of the US and shrinking.
8 May 2009 at 9:32 AM
“Ike those rail cars aren’t piling up across the landscape, so you can’t use that as an estimate of land usage for a coal plant.”
then include the space taken up by the rail link. After all, it NEEDS the link and if it wasn’t there, there would be no power station.
I think you’ll find that a much larger area.
Be careful what you wish for.
8 May 2009 at 9:37 AM
I wish people would stop throwing around the phrase “the need to decarbonize the economy” - carbon being a rather important element in all life forms. What we need to do is switch the economy from a fossil fueled basis to a renewable energy basis, and stop pumping carbon out of stable geological reservoirs and into the atmosphere.
Decarbonizing the economy would require the elimination of all food production, for example, as all food is carbon-based.
Where did this language come from, anyway? It’s most evident in Congress, where calls for emissions cuts are popular, but calls for a transition to renewable energy and an end to coal and oil combustion are pretty rare, and renewable energy generation targets are unheard of.
Rene says “Bottom line question is : how much more will it cost?”
Well, it will actually cost a lot less over the lifetime of the solar power plant, because no fuel needs to be imported and burned to generate power. It’s this lower cost that makes banks who have seen high returns from coal-rail-utility deals uneasy.
Low costs for the consumer translate into low profits for the supplier, and also towards a large-scale economic shift in the energy business, one that leaves coal mines and major railroads out in the cold. To avoid this scenario, they pay various PR organizations, front groups and anonymous bloggers millions of dollars a year to spread propaganda aimed at preventing that from happening. It has to be done in secret and anonymously because it flies in the face of the other propaganda lines promoted by the industry, such as “We believe in free markets and competition, not in exclusive cartels run with government assistance”.
Essentially, the banks are still firmly refusing to finance any large-scale transitions to renewable energy because that would do serious damage to their existing holdings in fossil fuels. Something like half of the major bank’s underwriting is in the fossil fuel area, so we actually just made a $350 billion investment in fossil fuels, and if we agree that Iraq expenditures are mainly aimed at securing access to the oilfields (as per Alan Greenspan), then we can add another trillion on top of that. That would be a cartel run with government assistance, more or less.
The problem is not just to replace our fossil fueled system with renewable energy sources, but also to replace large financial cartels with a competitive energy market that promotes innovation and fair prices. It seems impossible to one without the other, if past behavior is any guide.
8 May 2009 at 9:57 AM
MikeN: “BY that logic I should complain about mercury from CFLs poisoning Chinese workers or that the Prius battery factory is an environmental disaster in Canada.”
Yes, that’s the approach used by people who come up with EROEI estimates for biofuels and land-use change as well - I’m just applying the same approach without bias to all energy generation schemes.
For example, David Pimental and Tad Patzek have won accolades from the oil industry for using similar approaches to estimate energy budgets for ethanol:
For their calculations, they include things like the energy needed to grow the food for the workers at the ethanol factory - it’s garbage, and anyone can see it is garbage because they give a single number, not a range of possibilities. If you do this for solar-powered vs. coal-powered ethanol production, then the fossil energy estimates would be very different - but no mention of that at all?
The right way to do this is to use lifecycle analysis of energy and pollution costs - and that means including raw materials and wastes, like coal ash:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/67753.html
“Coal ash is damaging water, health in 34 states, groups say.”
For an ethanol production system, you have to include the land used to grow the crops and the fertilizer inputs, but you also have to distinguish between energy sources. See the French farmer’s solar setup - with that, I’m sure you could power a good-sized ethanol refinery.
Likewise, it is far easier to clean up dirty manufacturing processes than it is to remove CO2 from either exhaust streams or the atmosphere. It is interesting to see that the industry now views electric cars as a big enough threat to start running a PR campaign against them, however. As far as CFLs, mercury from coal is a ridiculously larger source - and CFLs will be replaced by low energy LEDs with better light, hopefully soon.
The worst current performers under lifecycle analysis are tar sand oil and coal, but coal with carbon capture and sequestration would be an order of magnitude worse - the only way it could work is if you set up nuclear, wind or solar power plants for no other purpose than to provide energy for carbon capture - but if you did that, you could just shut down the coal plant and use your new sources.
8 May 2009 at 10:03 AM
Sigh, so many lies, so little time to spend debunking them.
8 May 2009 at 10:10 AM
[Response: As long as it is free to emit CO2, no innovation to prevent CO2 emissions can possibly compete (with the sole exception of efficiency gains, but that is insufficient). Demanding ‘innovation’ without giving it any economic incentive is like demanding ice cream without being bothered to go to the freezer. Nice in theory, but non-existent in practice. - gavin]
Explain the economic theory of reduction of CO2 please. There is every economic incentive to continue the production of CO2 based technology. The solution being presented right now is bogus. The idea that people are going to switch to more costly technologies to save a future people is absurd. In a basic nutshell, it’s trading a future disaster for a disaster in the immediate future.
Right now, there are some computer scientists tossing around ideas for global warming. One effort is to get an idea of the CO2 footprint from computer based technology. Another effort is to developed computerized methods to control energy consumption, so Less energy is wasted.
Innovation is the way out of this problem. Computer scientists know that they will make money by saving people money, and they will reduce emissions at the same time. That plan is economically viable, but the call of sacrifice is not; as a result, the effort by some scientist to push that agenda will fail.
8 May 2009 at 10:57 AM
Well in that case you had better start negotiating with them to prevent it. If you start cutting your emissions, not only will that have an effect, but it will also encourage China to do the same, so your cuts will be geared up.
What infuriates me is that you seem to think that the Chinese are as selfish, greedy, and stupid as you are. They are already facing up to the main problem, which is over population, with their one child policy. (If global population was a tenth of its current size, then the current per head emissions would not be causing a problem.) But the oil companies arranged for China and India to be left out of Kyoto, knowing that it would set the American people against it.
But thanks to Obama, the Chinese are now negotiating. See China ready for post-Kyoto deal on climate change. So, Chip, it is only red-necks like you who would rather see the world destroyed, than stop driving their SUV and Monster Trucks.
Cheers, Alastair.
8 May 2009 at 11:17 AM
Since this is a thread full of analogies and metaphors I’ll offer one more for consideration. Picture the nations of the world crammed into a large, but leaky, lifeboat. If the lifeboat sinks, everyone suffers. Does it make any sense for the US to say we’re not going to waste effort bailing our end of the lifeboat until everyone else does? Or does it make more sense to lead by example and bail as hard as we can while encouraging other to bail too?
8 May 2009 at 11:23 AM
#126 dhogaza:
Off topic, but I love this snippet: “HUMMER has, for example, established a new national network of new, standalone Quonset hut, hangar-style dedicated dealership facilities over the past several years,..”
Hummer=military cross-dressing for civilians. Amazing how our fashion accessories have mushroomed to several tons in mass; Transvestite costumes with engines.
8 May 2009 at 11:49 AM
> #117 Mark
> So? [Mad cow] certainly cause several farmers to lose
> their livelihoods and many more would have been made penniless if
> it weren’t for government schemes to bail them out.
The point at issue, which still stands, is that farmed animals are the least likely of all animals to face extinction. This is because although mistakes may be made from time to time, people attempt to look after their own property. This is the opposite of a tragedy of the commons scenario, where unowned property is abused.
> #118 Mark
> the average number of directorship and similar posts held by
> a board of the directors of Nortel Networks is five.
> So if Nortel go belly-up (like John Ross made it do), the
> directors are AT WORST 20% down on their salary. What did JR get?
> a $6M bonus payment. Why? Because it wasn’t the Board’s money.
> Neither cared about efficiency or viability.
That directors don’t subsequently become unemployed is quite irrelevant. And you still ignore that if the company was viable, there would be no incentive to shut it down in the first place, hence no need to pay ‘killer’ execs to do the ‘killing’. Simply ignoring bankruptcy won’t make it go away.
Efficiency stems from the fact that the Board/shareholders have no need to pay execs more than they need to, to secure their services.
8 May 2009 at 11:49 AM
Please, Alastair, lay off the language. You’ve been loading up this blog with disingenuous commentary for quite a while now - are you going to tell us again how the climate models don’t handle radiation correctly, a theme you’ve posted on dozens of times? Yes, climate science is all wrong…
Then, you promote the theme that economic growth is reliant on fossil fuels, another standard industry PR line.
Finally, you engage in the equivalent of hate speech, as in calling people “selfish, greedy, and stupid” - just another irrational angry environmentalist, is it? Or are we doing a little side work for Edelman and Burson-Marstellar?
You might think you’re fooling your audience, but you are really just demonstrating that Adam Smith was right: “No regard will be paid to truth, morals, or decency in the doctrines inculcated.”
8 May 2009 at 11:51 AM
Chip Knappenberger wrote: “I showed that even under scenarios with high climate cost, the benefit of U.S. emissions reductions (absent the development of readily transferable and accepted new technologies) was extremely low …”
Your scenario contains a false premise, since “readily transferable and accepted new technologies” to replace fossil fuels already exist.
According to WorldWatch Institute, 27 Gigawatts of new wind energy capacity was installed in 2008 alone. Wind accounted for 42 percent of all new electrical generation capacity in the USA in 2008, second only to natural gas for the fourth year in a row, and within a few years will account for the majority of newly installed generating capacity. Wind is already the leading source of new generating capacity in the EU. China has already surpassed its 2010 wind target of 10,000 MW and ended 2008 with 12,200 MW in place.
Solar energy — including both photovoltaics and concentrating solar thermal power plants — is experiencing similar record-breaking growth.
The fact is that alternatives to fossil fuels are not only already available, they are already being deployed at a large scale all over the world, and deployment is accelerating.
Your claim that some unspecified, pie-in-the-sky “innovation” is needed before we can begin a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is simply false.
It seems pretty clear that you are interested in one thing only: to continue the use of fossil fuels, and the trillion dollar profits therefrom, as long as possible.
8 May 2009 at 11:56 AM
Gavin, thanks for a thoughtful post that I hope will be brought to the attention of every so-called “skeptic” - none of whom has any basis to deny that there are simply NO property rights protecting the atmosphere (or the oceans).
As a result, to prevent a continuing “tragedy of the commons” the nations of the world, need to make a collective effort to manage what is, after all, a shared resource.
It`s nice to see that others see that where there are no formal or informal property rights or similar mechanisms, all incentives point to ruin.
8 May 2009 at 12:17 PM
“The point at issue, which still stands, is that farmed animals are the least likely of all animals to face extinction.”
WHO CARES!!! The animal with the rotting brain falling all over the floor doesn’t care.
It is an illustration of how people WILL abuse their property if they think they can get away with it and get money or power or prestige from it in the short term.
Look what happened to the bloody fish stocks when Canada owned the Norfolk grounds again. Did they look after it?
NO.
8 May 2009 at 12:18 PM
Rene wrote @90: “This is because the whales were not owned. If they became farm animals like any other, they would be as unlikely to face extinction as chickens and cattle are.”
And this is why those advocating private ownership of everything on Earth are regarded as lunatics.
8 May 2009 at 12:47 PM
MikeN wrote @76: “Don’t coal and nuclear power plants occupy less land than equivalent amount of solar and wind generation?”
I take it you have never even seen a photograph of a wind farm, let alone visited one. The footprint of each individual pylon is quite small, even including an access road. The surrounding ground between pylons is fully capable of being plowed and sowed with crops or grazed, and indeed is, even directly under the blades.
As for solar, again, you might want to actually look at some examples of solar installations, such as those on the roof of residential and commercial buildings, those over parking lots, those along the otherwise vacant right of way of highways and rail lines, and even those above grazing land.
True, base-load solar-thermal plants do have larger dedicated footprints, but by necessity they tend to be located where the sun shines most steadily, as in deserts where population density is very low and not at all suitable for agriculture and grazing.
As for your coal and nuclear plants, be sure to include the land occupied by the mines and spoil piles, the prep and refining plants, the rail lines needed to get the continuous stream of coal from mine to plant–the rail line built to access the Powder River Basin coal field only carries coal, and the storage and reprocessing facilities that handle the nuclear and fly-ash waste streams.
And if you want to talk about generation with a truly large footprint, take a look at hydro-electric. True, dams and their impoundments can also offer the benefits of flood control and irrigation and drinking water supply, but not always. Neither is a benefit of Hydro Quebec’s truly massive James Bay scheme, for example.
8 May 2009 at 12:48 PM
Re #133, it may impressive put project that out and it is not enough for several reasons. 50% more energy required come 2030 and hence all that new renewable energy currently being deployed is just going into leaving fossil fuels static in usage at around 88% of current demand.
We have to ramp it up by around 3x its present deployment rate. It could happen but its a race against time ultimately and fossil fuel usage is not going to tail off soon enough.
8 May 2009 at 12:54 PM
SecularAnimist #133 — I agree with you that wind and solar deployment should go as fast as possible, but there is such a long way to go (due to the huge predominance of coal in power generation) that in the next 20 years the wind and solar growth probably can’t be enough to make a difference in CO2 emissions. Also, the demand for power is increasing as the world adopts the energy-intensive American way of life, especially now with plug-in cars, so just keeping up with demand will require even more coal plants. Taking coal plants offline in China, crippling their new-found prosperity to please the Yankee imperialists, is not going to happen. For the foreseeable future, coal will remain indispensable for power generation in China and in the rest of the world. If you disagree with my conclusion, I’d be interested in hearing why.
You say: “Your [Chip’s] claim that some unspecified, pie-in-the-sky “innovation” is needed before we can begin a rapid phase-out of fossil fuels is simply false.” This is because you believe that wind and solar can substitute for coal without disrupting power generation. I wish I had sufficient reason to believe this, but presently I don’t.
8 May 2009 at 12:55 PM
Ike Solem Says (8 May 2009 at 3:11)
“On one side you have a solar and/or wind plant that covers a large area, but which can coexist with residential/industrial land (solar) and agricultural land…”
Except that this is not true for large-scale solar power - dedicated solar plants, rather than e.g. putting solar panels on your roof. Look at plans for the Mojave &c solar projects, where the land is first scraped bare, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off anything that might possibly survive.
8 May 2009 at 1:01 PM
#135 Mark
>> Rene : farmed animals are the least likely of all animals to face extinction.
> WHO CARES!!! The animal with the rotting brain falling all over the floor doesn’t care.
The people who are about extinction would care. Which includes everyone who either sells or eats, and/or just admires the animals in question.
> It is an illustration of how people WILL abuse their property if they think they can get away with it and get money or power or prestige from it in the short term.
Compared to no ownership? And the more some people abuse their property, the greater incentive there is for other people to replace it.
> Look what happened to the bloody fish stocks when Canada owned the Norfolk grounds again. Did they look after it? NO.
Public ownership was it? Private owners in general would have no interest in depleting their stocks and killing off their golden geese.
8 May 2009 at 1:01 PM
As a first poster on this, or any other, climate site but one who frequently visits appreciates and learns much from RC and other sites, I found this thread fascinating, particularly in terms of the range of responses.
While Chip appears to me merely to have presented data demonstrating the modest impact that any realistic emission control efforts are likely to have, many responses appear to have concentrated on the question of his motivation for doing so, rather than attempting any rebuttal of his analysis. If the facts are as he states them and are presented without distortion, then, in my view, both facts and presenter should be treated with respect. When faced with uncomfortable facts it is not justifiable to resort to querying the motivation and intentions of the presenter as a means of diminishing their argument, no matter how passionately one may feel about the practical and ethical issues involved.
Ultimately the questions surrounding AGW and the appropriate response of individuals and societies must be resolved on the basis of incontrovertible science not moral outrage.
TGO’D
8 May 2009 at 1:05 PM
Rene #59
“The whole idea is to MAKE the products tradeable. Once this happens, it does not matter who owns them at any given point.”
Yes, this is the basic idea. Sometimes it´s feasible, although it depends on regulation to artificially allocate it, as some (as far as I know) success stories of “privatized” fisheries in Alaska, for instance. How these rules are made can make all the difference between success and failure of the whole thing. It´s not as automatic as “once it´s on the hands of the market, the problem´s solved”.
Farms are already privatized, and that does not prevent their owners to make some choices with bad externalities, like using processes that will deteriorate the land in the long run, if that means good productivity for some decades.
“And externality problems are neither better nor worse.”
Now that´s something very different. For example: you cannot define property rights to a big citie´s air, and I don´t see how it would help even if you could. Without emmission regulations, people are individually faced with a choice like this: they can spend some money to avoid emmissions and do a very tiny contribuition (individually) to the air of the city, or they can save that money a do a very tiny deterioration to that air. Since the agents, alone, won´t make much of a difference, they tend to do the latter. This tipically leads to the tragedy of the commons and the resource is depleted (or lost to pollution).
Economically, it only makes sense if you can make that decision together with the other users of the resource: do we all want to have a clean air and spend some money for it, or do we prefer to save some and live in a polluted city? In a big population, this joint decision is usually done through the law, or regulation.
For world CO2 emmisions, that´s even more complicated because you have to sew a world-wide treaty among sovereign states, who will in principle have an incentive to free-ride, pretend that they “don´t agree with the necessity of it” and emit freely, leaving costs of mitigation and externalities for others. They can even become more competitive because of that.
That´s true for direct regulations (like present automotive emmision regulations) and for cap-and-trade limits too.
The usefulness of Coase´s Theorem is nihil in pratice, when externalities are this diffuse.
8 May 2009 at 1:12 PM
#136 Jim Eager
>> Rene : If [whales] became farm animals like any other, they would be as unlikely to face extinction as chickens and cattle are.
> And this is why those advocating private ownership of everything on Earth are regarded as lunatics.
Is there any rationale behind this attitude?
8 May 2009 at 1:14 PM
Rene Cheront says:
“This is because the whales were not owned. If they became farm animals like any other, they would be as unlikely to face extinction as chickens and cattle are.”
The point at issue, which still stands, is that farmed animals are the least likely of all animals to face extinction. This is because although mistakes may be made from time to time, people attempt to look after their own property. This is the opposite of a tragedy of the commons scenario, where unowned property is abused.
Yeah, let’s just domesticate and privatize everything, that’ll solve it! You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about, either with regard to endangered species protection, management of a commons, or the interaction between the two. Zip.
8 May 2009 at 1:44 PM
Re: #133
SecularAlarmist,
So, what’s your point? I started with the wrong SRES scenario?
It seems that currently, despite your list of renewable installations, the rate of global emissions growth thus far this century is exceeding A1FI (primarily on account of China).
And that this trajectory is only temporary? And that, without legislation, we’ll eventually settle on a different trajectory, say A1B?
OK. Well, the impact of the U.S. emissions reduction legislation like Waxman-Markey is even smaller assuming A1B than assuming A1FI.
No matter how you slice it, the role that the U.S. has to play in mitigating projected climate change is through innovation, not through its own reductions–no matter how large or small they are. So why keep pushing this course of action?
Efforts like Waxman-Markey are aimed at causing an artificial crisis (a diminishing supply of fossil fuels) to stimulate innovation.
Perhaps there are other, more direct ways (I understand that Gavin doesn’t think so), but maybe others can come up with some?
-Chip
8 May 2009 at 1:45 PM
Zeke’s post (#2) covers the essentials. The “the U.S. acting without international agreement won’t help” is indeed a fallacious argument. If the U.S. doesn’t act, few others will. We’ve already seen that. If the U.S. acts, it’s not a guarantee that others will but the likelihood is increased. At the very least, the world’s strongest power taking action will create strong market incentives that will accelerate technological development which will all for quicker adoption by other nations.
8 May 2009 at 1:47 PM
CBO has a useful graphic on their homepage:
http://www.cbo.gov/
8 May 2009 at 1:47 PM
Rene Cheront wrote: “With the odd exception, people do not knowingly or deliberately abuse their own property, since this is self-defeating. Do you knowingly or deliberately abuse your own property? Surely not.”
Owners of factory-farmed animals systematically abuse their property for the simple reason that it is profitable to do so.
When animals such as chickens are raised in unhealthful conditions of brutal, filthy confinement, and transported to slaughter under even worse conditions, they suffer enormously and some of them die as a result. Their death is an economic loss to the owner. But if that loss is less than the cost of treating the animals better so as to reduce the number who die, then it is to the owner’s economic benefit to continue to abuse the animals.
8 May 2009 at 1:49 PM
TGOD says:
While Chip appears to me merely to have presented data demonstrating the modest impact that any realistic emission control efforts are likely to have, many responses appear to have concentrated on the question of his motivation for doing so, rather than attempting any rebuttal of his analysis.
You need to go back and read the responses again, because there have been numerous rebuttals. His argument is either one of two things: (1) a self-apparent triviality if it is meant to be interpreted strictly as stated, as argued by SecularAnimist in #21 or (2) a subtle attempt to imply that, since U.S. actions will do little to affect future temperatures, nobody should do anything, which was picked apart by a whole bunch of people in numerous posts.
He’s aligned with a group that wants no part of anything that involves economic sacrifices, and if you think that doesn’t raise questions about his motives, then I don’t know what to tell you.
8 May 2009 at 1:49 PM
You know, the reason that poor people suffer so much is that no one owns them. If someone owned poor people, the owners would have an incentive to take care of them so as to protect the value of their property. Thus, the solution to the problem of poverty is to reinstitute chattel slavery.
8 May 2009 at 2:09 PM
Slave owners in the South actually used a variant this argument during the great antebellum debate on slavery in the US.
8 May 2009 at 3:02 PM
Chip Knappenberger wrote: “… the role that the U.S. has to play in mitigating projected climate change is through innovation, not through its own reductions …”
The ONLY way to mitigate projected climate change is by reducing emissions, period.
The ONLY “innovations” that are relevant are innovations that reduce emissions.
Those “innovations” — clean renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency technologies — already exist, and are already being deployed on a large scale. They are already helping to reduce the growth in emissions, by displacing fossil fuels that would otherwise be burned to provide new energy. For example, the new wind energy capacity added worldwide in 2008 alone is the equivalent of around 27 new coal-fired power plants.
What is urgently needed right now is measures to accelerate the deployment of existing renewable energy and efficiency technologies, so they can quickly reach the point where they not only account for 100 percent of all new energy sources, but start to replace existing fossil fuel use.
Putting a price on carbon pollution, whether through a carbon tax or cap-and-trade, so that the market reflects the true cost of carbon pollution, is an important measure to accelerate the deployment of alternatives.
You keep using the word “innovation” but you have yet to say exactly what you mean by it.
Based on the context, it appears that you are using it as a euphemism for “continue burning fossil fuels at business-as-usual, accelerating rates, no matter what”.
8 May 2009 at 3:14 PM
Why is it that several of you think that it is perfectly OK, to use a certain set of tools—in this case climate models run under a set of potential emissions scenarios—to tell you what the future climate may be like and conclude that we need to do something to alter those emissions scenarios, but then are beside yourself and full of indignation that I would use the same set of tools to examine what the impact of future climate would be if you actually did those things to reduce emissions? Wigley did this analysis for Kyoto. I did this analysis for Waxman-Markey. Waxman-Markey only applies to U.S. emissions. What else did you want me to do? A global analysis of Waxman-Markey? I did that, too!
Conclude from it what you want. Clearly, the folks here conclude something different than folks elsewhere. But, at least the numbers are out on the table for all to see and make their own conclusions. Prior to this, the results weren’t being so well advertised.
-Chip
8 May 2009 at 3:30 PM
Ike,
“The Tragedy of the Commons” in not about common land, it is about all shared resources. It is an essay that appeared in Science in 1968 by Garrett Hardin. It is true that over exploitation of common land was used as a reason for the “Enclosures” in England, but Gavin gave another example where lack of enclosure led to the destruction of the Newfoundland fishing grounds. So Hardin was asking “for a strict management of global common goods via increased government involvement or/and international regulation bodies.” See “Wikipedia.
This is of course anathema to many Americans such as Chip. They regard it as communism by the back door and most would rather be dead than red. I would not mind that, but for the fact that it would mean my death too! Now can you understand why I get very angry? Chip is quite happy to kill me, my family, and my friends all in the name of freedom. It is not freedom for me, and it is “selfish, greedy, and stupid” of him.
BTW with regard to “how the climate models don’t handle radiation correctly” the following paper has just been published in Quart. J. R. Met. Soc,:
An evaluation of the long-wave radiative transfer code used in the Met Office Unified Model; C. Goldblatt, T. M. Lenton, A. J. Watson; (p 619-633)Published Online: Apr 9 2009 8:32AM DOI: 10.1002/qj.403
The abstract contains the sentence “Errors for surface and top-of-atmosphere fluxes for CO2 are similar to those from the mean of the general circulation model (GCM) codes submitted to the inter comparison of radiation codes for IPCC AR4, implying that errors as found here may not be uncommon in [all] climate models.”
8 May 2009 at 3:32 PM
Rene asked @144: “Is there any rationale behind this attitude?”
Why, yes, there is, and SecularAnimist and dhogaza expressed it quite nicely in 151 & 152.
I’ll give another example: that of Bechtel in Bolivia, where even rainwater was privatised with a law that made it illegal for citizens to collect rainwater for domestic use.
Fortunately, your extreme market view is on the far fringe and in all likelihood is destined to remain so.
8 May 2009 at 3:42 PM
TGO’D #142 — I agree with you. Civility is a worthy goal. Ad hominem sniping, questioning motivation, does not add to the strength of a position. Feelings run high on an issue as important as saving the planet, so I hope you will indulge some occasional outbursts, which I find add some spice to the discussion.
8 May 2009 at 3:53 PM
Waxman-Markey, the giant cap-and-trade bill still stuck in subcommittee, is going through some disturbing changes in order to emerge. One is that over half of CO2 emissions will be excused by grandfathered pollution allowances. Polluters get a free pass, which would moot EPA enforcement of CO2 regulation. Cap-and-trade has not been successful at significantly reducing CO2 emissions in Europe.
8 May 2009 at 4:30 PM
Possibly the best analysis of the problem posted on RC.
However, it is almost impossible to “sell” a problem to the public and policy makers. It is much easier to sell a solution. Great fortunes have been made selling solutions to problems that were hardly noticed before the solution was marketed. No problem was ever solved by selling the problem. Problems are always solved by selling solutions.
We have a real problem. Global warming in its worst form will put a stop to science as a past-time. If you want the fun of doing science, you need to go out and sell the solutions to AGW.
Selling solutions may not feel like “science”, but it is what needs to happen to save science.
8 May 2009 at 4:30 PM
Jim Eager Says (8 May 2009 at 12:47):
“True, base-load solar-thermal plants do have larger dedicated footprints, but by necessity they tend to be located where the sun shines most steadily, as in deserts where population density is very low and not at all suitable for agriculture and grazing.”
So that makes it OK to destroy that particular piece of environment? Could you please explain the difference between that and the attitude that sees the value of whales as only the money you get from the oil & meat?
8 May 2009 at 4:34 PM
Good timing on this, with the Minnesota fishing opener tomorrow, so I posted it for comments at the Chanhassen, MN blog:
http://www.chanvillager.com/news/schools/climate-change-open-discussion-minnetonka-101#comment-1921
8 May 2009 at 4:58 PM
Why is it that several of you think that it is perfectly OK, to use a certain set of tools—in this case climate models run under a set of potential emissions scenarios—to tell you what the future climate may be like and conclude that we need to do something to alter those emissions scenarios, but then are beside yourself and full of indignation that I would use the same set of tools to examine what the impact of future climate would be if you actually did those things to reduce emissions?
If we buy into the legitimacy of your analysis Chip, then the only logical conclusion is that we have to do a LOT more than Waxman and Markey are proposing, and that is sure to set MasterResource into a conniption. If your results are as significant as you say, then you need to submit them for publication. And please stop justifying what you’ve done just because Tom Wigley did something similar wrt Kyoto decisions, with a different model, over a decade ago. It’s irrelevant; you have to show that what YOU are saying is solid science. And you also have to know that your association with a group having a definite pro-economic agenda places the onus of demonstrating strict impartiality with regard to the science squarely on YOU. There are MANY questions that could be asked which you would have to explain
8 May 2009 at 5:01 PM
RE 139 Wilmot McCutchen - I have done everything but write a poem, and I still haven’t managed to get some of these people to see why these technologies will not work. None of these technologies are new, and there is reasons why they never made it into mainstream energy production. Krystal Goodwind invented wind power technology over one hundred years ago. The technology has been made more efficient over the last century; however, it still has the same fundamental problems.
I’m also fascinated by the pro Chinese arguments. Some people support the proposition that totalitarian governments care about global warming and its impact on mankind. China recently ordered some 250,000 people to begin smoking so that they could benefit the suffering tobacco companies. If the people refuse to smoke, they are fined.
[Response: This was a local govt and they backed down immediately in the face of protests. China is not a well governed state, and the central govt controls less than is commonly assumed but they aren’t completely helpless either. - gavin]
Actions betray lies. Recently, China said development will come before global warming concerns. China also calls on developed nations to divert 1 percent of their GDP to developing nations like china for a climate change effort.
People see what they want to see; indeed, there is so much disinformation coming from the fossil fuel industry and the renewable industry that people can easily find information to ‘believe in’. But the problem of global warming still remains. I just worry that we are creating new problems on top of it, Dangerous problems.
8 May 2009 at 5:05 PM
“So that makes it OK to destroy that particular piece of environment? ”
Because we’d be killing them off with killer temperatures?
Just a wild stab in the dark.
Of course, it’s BETTER to not need so much energy. So go ahead and do it.
8 May 2009 at 5:08 PM
“Ad hominem sniping, questioning motivation, does not add to the strength of a position. ”
Ad hom requires that you go “you are an idiot therefore your arguments are wrong”.
It is not “your arguments are idiotic and therefore you’re an idiot”.
By your works shall ye be known.
And some people really ARE idiots. But useful ones for people who want no change because in a new world they may have reserves no other has access to, but being at the top means they can only go down.
So ignore the evidence, ride the train as fast as you can and hope that some other sucker gets it in the shorts when you’ve left.
Sounds rather like most killer CEO’s, doesn’t it.
8 May 2009 at 5:20 PM
Another scarce resource,oil,is dealt with in an op-ed in the NY Times by Evar D. Nering some years ago, illustrating the false sense of security that discovery of new supplies would have under a growing rate of annual consumption:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/opinion/the-mirage-of-a-growing-fuel-supply.html?scp=1&sq=Op-Ed,%20%22The%20Mirage%20of%20a%20Growing%20Fuel%20Supply%22%20by%20Evar%20D.%20Nering&st=cse
I worked up the numbers here:
http://www.livejournal.com/update.bml
The author rightly points out that reducing the growth rate would be far more effective than doubling the size of the reserve. Halfing the rate of consumption will double the life expectancy of the supply,whereas doubling the reserve will add at most 14 years to the live expectancy of the resource under the conditions he specifies.
8 May 2009 at 5:30 PM
Chip Knappenberger, I’m just curious, how would your results have been different if you had started with a serious CO2 reduction program–roughly equivalent to the one you assumed. That was before growth really took off in China and India. Russia’s economy was in the toilet. It probably would have been easier at that point to get them to go along. Instead, we argued about established physics for 10 years. That seems like a pretty interesting pair of scenarios–where we are now vs. where we could have been had we had a reality-based policy.
8 May 2009 at 5:56 PM
From my inbox: an abuse of a different sort of commons which nevertheless may seem awefully familiar…
The plot thickens: More fake journals in the Elsevier/Merck story
Posted by ouroboros under Journals
May 7, 2009
http://oroboros.wordpress.com/..
Pardon me while I turn up my NIN…
8 May 2009 at 6:18 PM
Re: #158
“Cap-and-trade has not been successful at significantly reducing CO2 emissions in Europe”
That is because the EU commission, pressured by some countries (mostly Germany -at the behest of its industrialists- and the new Eastern members who still run some very polluting Soviet-era factories) issued way too many CO2 permits with the result that their price dropped to practically zero, so there is no significant incentive to reduce emissions, you can buy all the permits you want for a pittance. Picking the right method is only good if you also implement it right.
8 May 2009 at 6:29 PM
Mark Says (8 May 2009 at 17:05):
“Because we’d be killing them off with killer temperatures?”
You’d have an argument if those desert-destroying solar arrays were the only possible source of non-fossil-fuel energy, or perhaps even if they were significantly less expensive than the many possible alternatives. But they’re not: there are many better choices.
I guess it’s just another tragedy of the commons. Because that desert is “public land”, it can be used as a free dumping ground, just like the atmosphere is for CO2.
8 May 2009 at 7:42 PM
Property rights are not an end-all or be-all, but they are a linchpin in understanding the dynamics of the tragedy of the commons problem. Resources that are owned - formally or informally, in common or privately - are husbanded, at least much better that when they are not.
This is a key point to keep hammering home with “conservatives”, “skeptics” and ordinary people, whom can all recognize that market demands produce a tragedy of the commons whenever valuable resources are not owned (or cannot be protected) by those who use them.
When there is ownership, (1) users have incentives to invest in protecting what, after all, supports their own livelihoods and, even further, (2) those who also care about the resource have an ability to also protect the resource - by investing it themselves, or by making other private, market decisions, such as to boycott particular owners and to favor others.
When there is no ownership, there is very limited ability by anyone to protect the resource directly, and what we are left with is a battle of words.
Of course a corollary problem that requires attention is that when resources are “publicly” owned, such resources may in fact be treated as a commons, or something that politicians and bureaucrats dole out to whomever is in favor - witness the environmental destruction in communist states, the logging of “public” tropical forests, and our own continued mismanagement of public lands.
In that case of fisheries, this is so readily apparent that even the mainline environmental groups are now calling for giving fishermen property rights in the fish they catch in order to end the destructive race to catch them:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/01/15/for-crashing-fisheries-coalition-of-mainline-us-enviro-groups-calls-for-property-rights.aspx
Meanwhile, concerned citizens continue to misunderstand the key dynamics of environmental problems, and to miss opportunities to rub the faces of “market” fundamentalists and “conservatives” in the obvious lack of property rights in the atmosphere (and a related inability of those adversely affected by using the atmosphere as a dumping ground to seek redress from those who profit from using it as one):
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/12/overlooked-by-those-warmed-by-climate-rhetoric-quot-alarmist-quot-or-quot-skeptic-quot-the-fact-that-our-most-important-commons-have-no-property-rights-rules.aspx
8 May 2009 at 8:24 PM
#170 James:
Ignoring for a moment the existence of an ample supply of desecrated desert suitable for PV arrays, we’ve structured our population size and consequent economy in a way that makes choosing between bad and ugly a mandatory requirement. Once the cuteness/gee-whiz factor of windfarms wears off I’m sure we’ll be thinking about something better, but in the meantime windfarms are better than the anachronisms we’re leaning on. Same deal with PV arrays; maybe we’ll end up hating them but they’re going to be part of a mix we’re forced to deal with.
We don’t have the luxury of waiting for perfection here.
Now, we –could– be discussing the ultimate AGW curative, namely more and better birth control, but that seems to be off the table. “Growth” is what allows slackers to make capital work for them, after all, so it seems the fix of simply letting our population shrink is not on.
8 May 2009 at 8:51 PM
No, Alastair, the tragedy of the commons is a piece of bogus 20th century economic handwaving aimed at justifying private ownership of everything under the sun, and the classic example of this is those pundits who claim that only “privatization of the atmosphere” will save us - because people only care about what they own, and by the very act of caring they can solve the problem… Idee fixe in action, aka “triumph of the will”.
Consider the Easter Island case - the locals eventually cut down all the trees which they had used to build their deep-sea canoes, critical for capturing larger ocean fish and mammals. They probably wanted the trees to come back, very much so - but all that demand for trees didn’t magically create new trees, did it? Their enclosures were only ‘enclosed’ by their sea-going canoes, and for canoes they were dependent on their local ecosystems.
The same goes for herders who exist on the edge where grasslands meet desert. If the desert expands after a few years of drought, there isn’t any commons to graze on, and the only choice is to leave the region or perish from thirst. Those are obvious ecological factors - but economists don’t believe they have to learn anything about ecology, or thermodynamics, or modern science - other than a little bit of semi-complex mathematics, which they can use to impress and intimidate their audiences - mummery.
[edit] Inhofe always says that he is opposed to “the false notion that man-made greenhouse gases threaten our very existence” - but that’s a straw man argument. No scientist says that, they just point to the predicted effects under business-as-usual - sea level rise, drought, etc. - but you certainly provide a nice example of that argument for Inhofe to point to, don’t you? You would agree that “our very existence” is threatened, you’ve said it multiple times… [edit]
Chip, your argument is just silly; everyone knows that global agreements are intended to be updated and improved every five years (or less) - first, you get everyone to sign on to an agreement aimed at replacing fossil fuels with renewables, then you work at it for five years, then you have a meeting and set new timetables.
Your argument is identical to the one that “Kyoto would do little to reduce emissions, so why bother?” It’s just a political tactic aimed at halting the first stage in the process, the global agreement. Blocking any U.S. climate legislation is thus a critical part of the agenda of the coal lobby, isn’t it?
That does seem to be the goal - because if the U.S. doesn’t agree to some level of legislation after China has already made large commitments to renewable energy generation, China will most likely not agree to any U.S. demands.
You can’t keep rolling out the same stupid pet tricks year after year and expect no one to notice.
http://www.martinot.info/china.htm#law
I hadn’t heard about that - had you? You can count on the trusty U.S. media to not report on anything related to international renewable energy development…
8 May 2009 at 9:14 PM
Absolutely excellent article, Gavin! You have done a great service to the world in writing this piece of incredible common sense!
Thank you for all your hard work!
8 May 2009 at 10:06 PM
Enjoyed your perspective. Agreed with the comment above: we must sell a solution, not a plan. Here’s another good environmental site I stumbled upon: http://buildakinderearth.com
8 May 2009 at 10:27 PM
James (160), you will get very little sympathy from me if 1) you continue to act as if there is a proposal to cover the entire southwest of the United States with solar thermal power plants, and 2) you dig in your heals in the exact same way that the sceptics/deniers have done and stand in the way of working our way out of our current dilemma. The inconvenient fact is that solar works best where there is steady sunshine, wind works best where there is steady wind, hydro works best where water falls. Get over it or get out of the way, because business as usual is not an option.
8 May 2009 at 11:28 PM
Rene Cheront wrote: “With the odd exception, people do not knowingly or deliberately abuse their own property, since this is self-defeating. Do you knowingly or deliberately abuse your own property? Surely not.”
Happens quite often in the agricultural sector >> Activist raid finds pigs ‘eaten alive’ by maggots.
9 May 2009 at 12:19 AM
On the supposed Tragedy of the Commons, the original authors later actually looked at the history, and realised that is in, in fact, the tragedy of the unmanaged commons. Lots of commons have been managed for hundreds of years entirely sustainably - they keys are good management and, as Joachim Radkau observed, a high degree of local control (see his “Nature and Power”).
On The US debate, we have a similar one here in Australia. I find this amusing, coming from people who have spent much of the last three decades forecfully persuading the rest of the world to adopt US policies on trade, copyright and so on. I find it hard to believe that China, India and Latin America would be hard to convince given the right combinations of incentives and pressure - carbon tariffs anyone?
9 May 2009 at 12:42 AM
No. It could be a tragedy of the conservative-appointee SCOTUS which might not enforce the various laws which would force intelligent siting of solar projects. But this commons is managed, and actually the laws are sufficient (if enforced).
Exactly. We haven’t exactly worshiped the desert we have.
9 May 2009 at 12:48 AM
#144 Alexandre
Yes, as I said in #22, since tradeable rights in air are not feasible, a climate tragedy of the commons cannot be cured like a grazing one can. But, as JBL says in #28, tradable rights in CO2 emissions can substitute.
9 May 2009 at 1:31 AM
#156 Jim Eager
>> Rene asked @144: Is there any rationale behind this attitude? (referring to fanatical opposition to privatisation, eg of whales)
> Why, yes, there is, and SecularAnimist and dhogaza expressed it quite nicely in 151 & 152.
That ‘rationale’ requires us to lump animals, grazing lands etc, together with humans.
> I’ll give another example: that of Bechtel in Bolivia, where even rainwater was privatised with a law that made it illegal for citizens to collect rainwater for domestic use.
Hardly comparable to privatising whales.
> Fortunately, your extreme market view is on the far fringe and in all likelihood is destined to remain so.
Yes, increasing totalitarianism is very much the political fashion of the time.
9 May 2009 at 1:35 AM
I think that countries like China and India have equal stakes in this global issue. Certainly the US with such a high per capita output of emissions and money/technology to make changes has a legitimate responsibility, but to state that China’s larger population (and until recently its enormous exponential growth rate) does not make it more and in relation to the US responisble is just categorically false in my analysis. I do believe that the US has a great duty to lead the way and perpetuate chnages which great;y reduce emissions; to lead by example even…this cannot be solved by any one country, region or continent. I, of course am not assuming you were saying so, either, Gavin and others, however, China is responsible more so than one country’s state or province for exactly the reason of such an overwhelming population and adoption of western technology;still we have a responsibility to work with China, India, Japan, Korea etc… to make available more green technologies in a fashion that is affordable; the economics on this are enormous, this I know too.
9 May 2009 at 1:39 AM
Gavin, I’m impressed you did not fall for the temptation of titling your excellent parable “Fish and Chip.” I would have. The linked argument is so greasy, and so clearly meant to be wrapped up in right-wing tabloids, it naturally suggests itself.
[Response: I might have, if I’d thought of it….
- gavin]
9 May 2009 at 3:42 AM
I am devoted reader of RC and there is no site like it for insight and debate and I want to take some time to respond to Gavin’s eloquent piece.
There is a remarkable centuries old custom concerning the commons in Sweden. It is called “allemansrätten” literally “everyone’s right.” It is not a law but protected by their Constitution. It gives to everyone, Swede and visitor alike, the right to access nature. You can walk almost anywhere, cross properties, fence lines, pick berries and mushrooms, and if out of earshot and eyesight, pitch a tent for the night. One rule: don’t disturb, don’t destroy. “No trespassing” signs are not allowed.
Imagine the level of cooperation and trust this tradition demands of a society. I can’t imagine it in my home state of Virginia.
Swedes grow up with it, it’s like mother’s milk. Allemansrätten is the Swedes’ “ubuntu.” As an outsider, the principle and practice of this right to access nature is clearly a fundamental experience that brings them closer to nature. They are more concerned because they have access to it. It seeds openness and transparency in their democracy. The right is intensely individual but with collective responsibilities. The whole country is a commons beneath the property lines.
And so it is no wonder Sweden has already surpassed its Kyoto obligations. Every house and business in Stockholm received a booklet on Earth day explaining how “we” will reduce emissions 10% in 2010, 25% by 2015 and be fossil fuel free latest 2050.
Another city, Örebro, is about to launch their effort, 30% by 2015. The town of Växjö is famous for its almost 40% reduction. And so on.
This not some sudden rush to act. Stockholm, then under Social Democratic leadership, began in 1995 – I guess they actually took the UN climate treaty seriously – and are already 25% below 1990 levels of emissions. The new aggressive targets are under a Conservative city council. It’s not a party thing.
The carbon tax has worked since the early 90’s. But their European Union Cap & Trade system is a disaster and this is a huge chunk of Swedish emissions. And they are well aware of their share of production outsourced to say, China. Now the Environmental minister is calling for an EU CO2 tax. A newcomer to the field, he caught on fast. Sweden’s Climate Science Panel (politicians incredibly listen to scientists and follow their recommendations) set the long term GHG target back in September 2007: 400 CO2e by 2100. Remarkably close to 350 CO2 by 2100. No hoopla, no fanfare, no alarm bells. No screaming headlines.
Finally, the Swedish development agency has shifted its focus and other than acute emergencies, all aid and investment will fund climate measures in developing countries – and as far as I know Sweden is the only country to allocate 1% of the nation’s budget to development.
And personally, my wife and I reside in a new part of town, Hammaby Sjöstad. Developed as a model of Swedish sustainable practices when they sought the 2004 Olympics, it is now a world leading urban design that almost met its goal of a 40% reduction in environmental impact - and now enters Phase II with a doubling of that goal. Our personal Earth footprint is one; our carbon per capita is equal to India.
You get my point. It ain’t a perfect country, it has its downsides like we all do, but on the whole Swedes are getting it done. They don’t shout and pout and go off on diatribes. They don’t wait for everyone else. They don’t wring their hands. They don’t brag (but maybe they should). They just do it. And for me, I see a clear connection between their individual right of access to nature as a blessed commons with collective responsibility and their common sense approach to tackling the greatest threat humanity has faced.
As luck would have it, Sweden takes over the EU Presidency July 1 and rides it into Copenhagen. This is their shot to make a difference. I am not sure their quiet consensus-building sense of the whole manner will do the trick in a world of self-interested nation-states. But if the world just took a closer look at their results, economic and ecologic, we might just believe that yes we can do it.
9 May 2009 at 4:04 AM
Re: 171 Doug Bostrom Says:
“Ignoring for a moment the existence of an ample supply of desecrated desert suitable for PV arrays, we’ve structured our population size and consequent economy in a way that makes choosing between bad and ugly a mandatory requirement.”
Yesterday I received a fund appeal letter from Environment California which included the following paragraph:
“Placing concentrating solar power facilities, also known as solar thermal power, on just 9% of the land area of Nevada could produce enough electricity to power the entire United States.”
Somehow I don’t think the citizens of my next door state will think that they should sacrifice “just” nearly a tenth of their state to satisfy the energy needs of the other 49 states. And as a native Californian, I believe my state should not require that other states provide us will all our energy needs.
Nevertheless, there is no need to destroy sensitive parts of our deserts and mountains to site solar and wind energy projects. There are plenty of disturbed areas that could be converted to renewable energy projects, as well as countless rooftops that could have PVs added to soak up “the warm California sun.”
9 May 2009 at 4:17 AM
Mike Hulme professor of Climate Change at East Anglia University reckons we are heading up a “dead end” by putting climate change science at the top of the political agenda.
…
“It is rather hubristic to think we can actually control climate. Climate change is the new human condition we have to live with. Let’s accept this is the new reality.
“Don’t construct the problem in a way which means we cannot have a solution which is the way I think we have got it constructed at the moment.”
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/science/2009/04/we-cant-solve-global-warming-s.html
9 May 2009 at 4:46 AM
Congratulations, what a nice piece of work. For your next step, please can I suggest that you find two people, firsly a jobbing philosopher and secondly a political “scientist” (eww) to help with fleshing out the arguments in this rather nice bit of writing.
9 May 2009 at 5:23 AM
I’m surprised that no one seems to have mentioned another true fish story that’s relevant to the discussion: The story of the Icelandic cod fishery.
Originally, this had the same “tragedy of the commons” problem as described in the original posting; as well as depredation from other countries. Eventually, the Icelanders kicked others out of their territorial waters, and imposed a system of enforceable and tradeable quotas on the fishermen. The less efficient fishermen sold their quotas to the more efficient, and the Icelandic fishery supports a sustainable industry to this date. Everybody made money; and this money was the starting point for Iceland’s economic rise.
(And then the “financial geniuses” went to work to turn this rise into a bank-pumping scheme, leading to the financial meltdown of Iceland - but that had nothing to do with the fishing industry.)
Enforceable, tradeable quotas: Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?
(I actually still like straight-forward carbon taxes better.)
9 May 2009 at 5:46 AM
Re: TGO’D at 142
“If the facts are as he states them and are presented without distortion…”
The issue is not Chip’s facts so much as his interpretation. Take this line from his conclusion to part II, “…the only truly effective course of action we have available to us in attempting to control the future course of global climate is to tell the rest of the world what to do and how to do it.”
Now change “…tell the rest of the world what to do…” to “…SHOW the rest of the world what to do and how to do it”, surely a much more appropriate conclusion. It could even be improved with “SHOW and HELP”. Another word would be “LEADERSHIP”.
(See: http://masterresource.org/?p=2367 for Chip’s original.)
It is not logic that leads from Chip’s “facts” to his conclusion, but his underlying “motivation and intentions”, and it is difficult to avoid questioning the underlying ethical basis under the circumstances.
“Ultimately the questions surrounding AGW and the appropriate response of individuals and societies must be resolved on the basis of incontrovertible science not moral outrage.”
Unfortunatley the incontrovertible science has been around for 10 years or more now and has made absolutely no difference, to the point where the effort required to control the problem is truly gargantuan, and the US is no longer in such a strong position to take that control (how convenient!). Genuine sceptics (& I was once one) who carefully evaluated the evidence would have been pursuaded long ago.
But those who can make a difference refuse to do so. Why? The only reason that makes sense is that they are in fact in denial. And denial requires a psychological explanation, a motivation, an addiction - something beyond a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence. What makes lifelong smokers refuse to quit, or company executives to continue to take bonuses as their companies fall into bankruptcy?
9 May 2009 at 6:24 AM
Rene Charont writes:
Are you familiar with the history of slavery, especially in the US and Brazil?
9 May 2009 at 6:33 AM
TGO’D posts:
Maybe you missed the rebuttal because it was so brief. Chip assumes the US does something and nobody else does anything. His analysis and conclusions are just fine if you accept that idiotic premise, but the premise is still idiotic.
9 May 2009 at 6:41 AM
EL writes:
How do you explain the fact that wind power electricity costs nine cents per kilowatt hour in California (not the eleven cents I had been assuming), while coal costs ten and nuclear fifteen?
9 May 2009 at 6:45 AM
Note, also, that China is undergoing explosive growth mainly for the same reason the Soviet Union did in the ’30s — because their previous economy was so grossly inefficient that practically any new capital investment will significantly increase production. As their economy modernizes, their growth rate will slow down.
9 May 2009 at 7:03 AM
Chip, the last time we chatted, you were going to look into why Rob Bradley had decided - in the middle of an exchange of comments with you on a previous post at his supposedly “free market” Master Resource blog - to block a libertarian like me from commenting, even taking that decision away from you:
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/03/11/rot-at-the-core-rob-bradley-at-quot-free-market-quot-masterresource-blog-shows-his-true-colors-as-a-rent-seeker-for-fossil-fuels.aspx
Do you fail to understand that the fact that Master Resource is a soapbox for the coal industry, which has up to know had the political establishment in its pocket (a small investment that has created great profits while shifting costs to the public and future generations)? Or that this affects the willingness of people to listen to you?
Your hope for a deus ex machina government investment program to somehow save us further illustrates your lack of understand how markets malfunction with respect to unowned resources.
Far better for the government to simply impose rebated carbon taxes, as both Exxon (which no longer funds Rob Bradley`s ventures, BTW; see link above) and Jim Hansen have called for, than to have government itself try to guess what technologies to invest in.
9 May 2009 at 7:54 AM
Heh. The tragedy of the commons isn’t actually a tragedy of the commons - it’s a tragedy of the free-for-all. There are any number of ways to overcome the tragedy of the commons - from Mutually Assured Destruction, to consensual co-operation - (and in many societies around the world, the latter has worked for centuries to millenia), but the free market ain’t one of them.
9 May 2009 at 8:06 AM
Chip Knappenberger’s oily propaganda illustrates the danger of “free market capitalism.” When adopted as an ideology, it enables ludicrous rationalization justifying doing nothing when the fate of the world is literally in the balance.
Capitalism is a good thing, it’s one of the best strategies for progress ever devised! But when worshipped as an ideological absolute, elevated to the status of God-given right with no restrictions whatever, free market capitalism becomes, literally, the motive and justification for nightmares like child labor and slavery. We no longer tolerate those sins. We can no longer tolerate the sin of destroying the environment in the name of “free markets.”
9 May 2009 at 9:17 AM
Rene wrote @173: “referring to fanatical opposition to privatisation, eg of whales”
and
“Yes, increasing totalitarianism is very much the political fashion of the time.”
Being against the privatisation of whales is “fanatical”?
Rene, you amply demonstrate that your grip on reality is slim to nonexistant.
And those who recognise the all too real potential dangers of climate change are called “alarmists”?
9 May 2009 at 10:17 AM
How might collaborative behavior arise? Here is Joseph Henrich from 2006, “Cooperation, Punishment, and the Evolution of Human Institutions.”
Here is how Gürerk et al. summarize their findings.
And here is Henrich’s conclusion.
9 May 2009 at 10:36 AM
I’m guessing Rene is an economist:
“Yes, as I said in #22, since tradeable rights in air are not feasible, a climate tragedy of the commons cannot be cured like a grazing one can.”
First of all, bad science. The CO2 we pump into the air equilibrates with the oceans and soils and the biosphere, which was the basic point behind the recent ‘carbon pie’ studies.
Second, you need to use science to assign realistic economic-ecological costs to the use of the global commons.
That’s an approach that Adam Smith would understand. He discusses raising cattle in the ‘unimproved wilds’, but he would not have a problem understanding that drought would reduce the grazing area of the commons, regardless of how it was parcelled up and ‘owned’ - and traditionally, this is how herd animal-based cultures survived. In dry years, herders pick up and head for wetter regions - which often led to conflict with settled agriculturalists.
Since we are talking about fish, see this recent story:
Shrimp tuned to ocean temperature, BBC, May 7 2009
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/324/5928/733
How would an economist take this into account when predicting the future of the fishing industry? Would they break out the econometric models, analyze patterns of supply and demand, and conclude that people’s desire to eat fish would eventually lead to ‘novel technological approaches’ that would solve the problem?
In other words, why do academic economists believe that they can ignore science yet make useful economic predictions? Do they really believe that economic growth has nothing to do with ecological stability? That’s irrational.
9 May 2009 at 12:23 PM
Excuse: anyone know any reason why my Internet Explorer “cannot open” Welcome to the Fray?
9 May 2009 at 12:23 PM
Re: #124
Decarbonising…
I usually find your comments particularly interesting so perhaps I should reply. I am guilty as charged. But when it comes to terminology, I judge it by the trouble it causes. One example is ambiguity and that depends on the context. I didn’t think that Realclimate readers would think I was referring to the biosphere, to old motor-cycles or be ignorant of the two oxygen atoms in the molecule.
What about global warming (GW) vs climate change (CC) then?
Forgetting about the existence of stratospheric cooling, which might favour the use of CC, and the political advice of spin-doctor Frank Luntz who also favoured CC I have come to see that there is something else involved. Only the second option automatically rules out the seven year trenders because it refers explictly to the concept of climate. So you can’t be accused of some new underhand trick when you demand that the discussion relates to climate.
What about the greenhouse effect ?
This terminology is a slight nuisance, because it so often needs to be accompanied by a disclaimer or even a longer description of experiments done with rock salt and wooden boxes. But what is the alternative?
9 May 2009 at 12:30 PM
“Chip assumes the US does something and nobody else does anything. His analysis and conclusions are just fine if you accept that idiotic premise, but the premise is still idiotic.”
The Chinese are about to make public token gestures precisely to counter exactly that argument. However the big idea is to move manufacturing to the cheap labour markets of the third world. Sustainable energy in the west will accelerate that process considerably. The end result of this process will be considerably more CO2 in the world as billions of new consumers are created.
9 May 2009 at 12:58 PM
Barton Paul Levenson
“Some experts not aligned with either camp estimate that wind power is currently more than 50 percent more expensive than power generated by a traditional coal plant. Built into the calculation is the need for utilities that rely heavily on wind power to build backup plants fired by natural gas to meet electricity demand when winds are calm.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html
As I have said before, wind power has huge problems that nobody seems to want to account for it in their numbers.
9 May 2009 at 1:17 PM
Chip, what happens if you give the top regions 100% emissions reduction?
9 May 2009 at 1:58 PM
203 (EL) Alleged problems of wind power
As long as wind power penetration in the grid is under 20% there is no problem whatsoever with back up, because total variation in (power supply minus demand) does not change much compared to the situation without wind power.
People have worked out what the cost is for the back up - and it is not large (a couple of cents per kWh). This has of course to do with the fact that -even if you needed 100% backup- you would still save the fuel.
Even larger penetration is possible (especially of the grid is large in a geographical sense), but you have to think carefully about grid reinforcement in critical places.
9 May 2009 at 3:41 PM
re 112
“Neither cows nor chickens face extinction, these mishaps notwithstanding. With the odd exception, people do not knowingly or deliberately abuse their own own property, since this is self-defeating. Do you knowingly or deliberately abuse your own property? Surely not.”
Aside from the fact you are essentially ignoring what was actually said to you, I would point out your representation is in error. The example of the Newfoundland Cod Fisheries is a classic exaple. While the Cod were not the fishermen’s ‘property’ per se, they were the commodity upon which their livelihoods were built.
And they decimated it.
Fact is, your premise is specious on its face - we OWN our mistakes, and we pay for them regardless of our attempts to pretend we don’t. It was once remarked that ignorance of the law is no excuse. It has also been remarked that natural laws have no pity. In the case of sustainability, this is a lesson the Eastern Islanders and many other peoples through history never learned, until it was far too late.
9 May 2009 at 3:46 PM
Chip, thought you might be interested in what Warren Washington and others have just published a paper in GRL* titled “How much climate change can be avoided by mitigation?”:
From the Abstract:
“A new low emission scenario is simulated in a global climate model to show how some of the impacts from climate change can be averted through mitigation. Compared to a non-intervention reference scenario, emission reductions of about 70% by 2100 are required to prevent roughly half the change in temperature and precipitation that would otherwise occur. By 2100, the resulting stabilized global climate would ensure preservation of considerable Arctic sea ice and permafrost areas. Future heat waves would be 55% less intense, and sea level rise from thermal expansion would be about 57% lower than if a non-mitigation scenario was followed.”
From the paper:
“To explore the global and regional distributions of future climate change that could be avoided with aggressive mitigation policies such as increased use of conservation, renewables and CO2 capture and storage, simulations with a comprehensive climate model are performed here with a new low emission mitigation scenario compared to a business-as-usual non-mitigation scenario. These scenarios were prepared by United States Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) scientists as part of a series of assessment reports. The CCSP report 2.1 [Clarke et al., 2007] provides scenarios in which carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and radiative forcings can be substantially reduced if new energy technologies and strategies are put into place….The reference non-mitigated CCSP scenario was based upon emission estimates several years before the data were published. Because of large recent emissions in China, the reference level estimates are generally believed to be lower than actual emissions (Figure 1). Thus, the magnitudes of climate change that can be avoided by following the low emission mitigation scenario should be considered conservative estimates. Actual avoided climate change in the mitigation scenario could be greater if business-as-usual emissions continue to increase at rates observed over the past few years.
Two sets of simulations were performed with a state-of-the-art global coupled climate model, the Community Climate System Model (CCSM3) [Collins et al., 2006; Meehl et al., 2005]… This model has a relatively low climate sensitivity of 2.7°C for a doubling of CO2. For future climate, we performed a non-mitigated reference case for comparison to a low emission mitigation scenario (four ensemble members each) which stabilizes atmospheric CO2 concentration at roughly 450 ppm by the end of year 2100 without an overshoot. CO2 and other greenhouse gas concentrations are calculated from the emissions specified in the two scenarios by the globally averaged gas-cycle/climate model MAGICC (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) that drives a spatial climate-change Scenario Generator (SCENGEN) [Wigley, 2008].
The 1900 to 2100 time series of CO2 emissions shows, for the mitigation emissions scenario, a rise over the next decade and then a peak followed by a gradual decline for a net decrease of about 70% of present-day values by the year 2100 … This corresponds to a stabilized CO2 concentration of about 450 ppm in 2100…The globally averaged surface air temperature increases by about 2.2°C (2080-2099 relative to 1980–1999) in the non-mitigated case, and about 0.6°C in the mitigation scenario (Figure 1c). The range of ensemble members is ±0.1°C…Thus, by following the mitigation scenario, a potential increase of global temperature of 1.6°C is averted, i.e., in the future we can avoid about twice the warming we have already observed since 1900.
…the regional warming that is averted in the mitigation case is roughly 3°C in the Arctic region and 1–2°C over land areas (Figure 2). Note that despite a 70% reduction in emissions over the 21st century, there is virtually no cooling. This is consistent with recent results that find similar behavior even for a 1000 yr timescale and a zero emission CO2 case [Solomon et al., 2009]. The reason is that the decrease in atmospheric CO2 that would occur in the long term is compensated by the commitment warming.
Clearly, the impacts of climate change with a mitigation scenario are substantially less than with a non-intervention emission strategy, and the amount of climate change that can be averted with mitigation is considerable.”
*[GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L08703, doi:10.1029/2008GL037074, 2009]
Looks like some folks using some of the same tools you use disagree pretty strongly with your conclusions about what’s possible Chip.
9 May 2009 at 3:55 PM
“The point at issue, which still stands, is that farmed animals are the least likely of all animals to face extinction.”
You’re entire premise is a straw man.
Or are you seriously proposing that if we just domesticated the biosphere, everything would be fine?
You can’t “farm” whales, as you suggested when you first brought up this empty analogy. And, as I pointed out, we own the problems we create, intended or not. And farmed animals bear little resemblance to the stock from which they were derived, anyway. They are actually more susceptible to disease, they tend to spread contagion, they are pumped up with drugs that in turn contribute to growing pollution problems and contamination of water supplies.
9 May 2009 at 3:58 PM
re #192 Barton Paul Levenson
I respect your posts and appreciate the answers you gave me on earlier threads that were instrumental in converting me from being a sceptic to a believer in AGW. Since my “conversion”, I have spent a great deal of time, in my amateur way, reading about solutions.
With respect to nuclear power, my initial reaction was to be anti- not because of safety or proliferation risks which I regarded as trivial relative to those of peak oil and global warming but because of finite uranium resources (lack of sustainability) and the time and heavy costs of construction. I thus focussed initially on wind, solar power and CCS coal. Onshore wind seemed to win on cost grounds, albeit with problems of intermittency which don’t appear to matter till we get to 20%. As we are well short of that, I am absolutely in favour of riding roughshod over NIMBYs and getting on with it. I came to believe that a totally renewable energy future (incorporating currently relatively expensive solar solutions plus wind) might be our only hope. However, it would, it seemed to me, require a precipitate drop in living standards for populations in the developed world and a quashing of aspirations of those in the developing world to get through the emergency with this so-called blend of solutions. The political feasibility of this appeared remote. I next began to speculate whether a massive disaster (eg a war of previously unimagined proportions) might be the best hope for at least a proportion of human civilisation and other animals to survive. It was at about this stage in my musings that I started to read about 4th generation fission power. If all I read was correct, it would provide a “get out of jail” card. It might be possible to treble our power supplies in an affordable way, thus making possible international agreements on controlling CO2 and sustaining a population (already in the pipeline) of 9 billion by 2050. The only downside would be continuing population growth rather than reduction thereafter.
Having cheered myself up with these thoughts, I decided to test my new found hope by inviting more expert opinions on the subject from correspondents on the RealClimate site. All I got tended to be an anti nuclear rant with no differentiation made between 3rd generation (unsustainable) and 4th generation (sustainable) technologies.
Barton, you have supported wind and criticised nuclear on cost grounds, citing California. Might I ask you to read the cite given by Sidd (#558 “Hit the brakes hard”) which I repeat: http:// www.eurotrib.com/story/2009/5/1/174635/6513 . The author is a wind enthusiast. Please appreciate from Figure 6.8 that the USA is atypical with respect to the rest of the world as regards relative power costs. In Europe, for example, the kWh cost of nuclear is much cheaper than that of wind and even coal (with or without a carbon levy). The article also makes clear that the cost of wind and nuclear power (due to absent and minimal fuel costs in the former and latter case respectively) are primarily attributable to construction costs and interest charges. The latter, in turn, are enormously influenced by discount rates. Construction costs of conventional (3rd generation) nuclear power are stated as being about half those of wind power per kWh generated. I suspect that nuclear power costs in the States are so high because of unnecessary delays and bureaucracy created by the anti nuclear lobby and NIMBYs and possibly also by power companies which will demand much higher profits for being prepared to face up to them. However, India, Russia and China are pressing ahead and the two former are well down the road top 4th generation nuclear power. This promises to be safer, have lower fuel costs, be quicker to construct (lower interest charges)and to have load following capabilities.
It seems to me (as a total non expert) that 4th generation nuclear technology should at least be given a fair chance to compete with other sustainable and CO2 free technologies.
9 May 2009 at 4:15 PM
#205 Dick Veldkamp:
That rebuttal is way too specific and factual, not vague enough. Remember, you’re not having a rational argument here; EL’s discussion is centered on nebulous fears and generalized anxiety about change of any kind. In order to engage, you ideally need to respond without citing any real world empirical data and preferably without any numbers at all.
9 May 2009 at 4:22 PM
205 - We are not talking about a supporting role anymore, but the replacement of fossil fuel technology with wind power. In other words, wind power to become the dominate method of energy generation. When your in Texas on a nice hot summers day, what are you going to do when wind power drops to 4% capacity with all those air conditioners running? You can’t just flip on the old nuclear reactor like a light switch. You have to have a second infrastructure in place to kick in with the other 96% of that power. When the wind blows… your going to have a infrastructure just sitting there… No matter how you want to tease the books… when you figure this in, it is expensive. Wind power is just not viable for a dominate role.
We need a solution that can play the dominate role in order to phase out fossil fuels. Until we find one, we are going to have fossil fuels burning. I hope for the best that wind power will at least knock the edge off the CO2 emissions; however, I wouldn’t hold my breath on replacing fossil fuels with this technology.
9 May 2009 at 4:31 PM
Re: #207
Jim,
You continue to act as if you haven’t read Part II of my analysis, in which I found that:
My results are right in line with Washington et al.
-Chip
9 May 2009 at 4:34 PM
“It has also been remarked that natural laws have no pity”
Paraphrased on bumper stickers as “Nature bats last”, which being a baseball fan, I much enjoy.
9 May 2009 at 4:53 PM
The paper by Washington and others that Jim Bouldin cites in #207 is available without subscription at
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/washington09grl.pdf
9 May 2009 at 5:17 PM
211 EL, the current fleet of power plants won’t magically disappear once renewable generation is built. Thus, the required backup is ALREADY THERE AND THERE IS NO NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
This fish analogy fails in one important respect: fish caught is a positive indicator while CO2 emitted is a negative one. Suppose we add fish farms, which would be analogous to renewable energy. Now, the questions become more realistic.
Captcha says: opposing land
9 May 2009 at 5:23 PM
Chip (212):
Then why do you say there:
“If the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, and former Soviet countries all limited their emissions of greenhouse gases according to the schedule laid out under Waxman-Markey…it would, at most, avoid only a bit more than one-half of a °C of projected global warming (out of 4.5°C—or only about 10%).
Including what you quote in 212, then emission reductions by Central and South America, and Africa (the only remaining un-named areas), are responsible for 2.37 - (1.13 + 0.5) = 0.74 degrees of mitigated warming, or about 150% that from the U.S., Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan combined? Is that right?
9 May 2009 at 5:26 PM
Chip, are you completely unfamiliar with China’s renewable energy law?
If you only get your news from a small number of national outlets, it’s not surprising that you wouldn’t have heard of it:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/3874
Thus, I’m sure you are an advocate of replacing cap-and-trade with feed-in tariffs for renewables, yes?
Of course, cap-and-trade is just a cosmetic effort which gives the fossil fuel industry and politicians what they want: business-as-usual and the appearance of diligence in the public interest, respectively.
After all, wasn’t Duke Energy able to rewrite the law to their liking?
I don’t really see what the coal & oil industry is all upset about - you’ve got Interior Secretary Ken Salazar pushing for more oil drilling in California, as well as promoting the bogus ‘clean coal’ myth on the Daily Show the other night.
Similarly, the second-in-command at DOE, Steve Koonin, was BP’s chief scientist while they were getting into Canadian tar sand oil - yes, read his words in 2008:
Likewise, Chu himself has voiced support for ‘carbon capture’ and FutureGen, although there is no prototype and the entire concept is as implausible as a Ford SUV that captures its own emissions.
I don’t see what the fuss is - aren’t the coal and oil lobbies getting everything they wished for from this Administration, same as the last one? So, the Republicans have been abandoned by the fossil fuel lobby, who are now throwing all their weight behind coal-state Democrats - not really any different, is it? Or am I missing something?
I’m starting to be reminded of Bush’s ardent calls for a ‘hydrogen economy’ in 2003 - I don’t see any hydrogen cars, do you? Bush also called for clean coal and carbon sequestration, same as Ken Salazar. What I want to know is, what does Barak Obama have to say, and do his words match with his appointments and budget decisions? Or are all pronouncements on energy policy going to be fed out through people like David Chu, Ken Salazar and Steve Koonin? Is the promised ARPA-E energy program anything other than smoke and mirrors, or will they be providing billions per year in federal grants to renewable energy researchers at public and private universities, the way the NIH and the NSF do?
It doesn’t look too good for anyone but fossil fuel interests, does it? Now, Obama is threatening to slash California’s federal stimulus package over some silly labor dispute - and we actually will use the money to build renewables. I don’t see any massive stimulus package flowing to the leading electric vehicle manufacturer, either (which is Tesla) - but I do see the Republican governor giving a lot of support to electric vehicles. Obama gives $30 billion to GM, one of the worst climate offenders, and ignores Tesla’s wildly popular electric vehicles - is this for real?
If this kind of two-faced nonsense continues, California citizens should just start delivering 75% of their federal income taxes to the state, and tell Washington to keep their stimulus packages.
9 May 2009 at 5:40 PM
215 - The entire idea is to make the current fleet disappear. If the goal isn’t to make them disappear then what is the point? Quite frankly, we have to get rid of the fleet… it’s doing a lot of damage. It’s just not going to be done with wind power…
9 May 2009 at 6:21 PM
If I was one of the 50 worst fishermen, I would be looking for a new line of work or hope I live in a comunist society. If I can only catch 10% of the top fishermen, I’m not good enough to compete in a capitalistic society.
9 May 2009 at 6:22 PM
218 EL, NO, the entire idea is to reduce the USE of the current fleet by 80%.
9 May 2009 at 6:25 PM
After the worst 50 fisherman find a more rewarding line of work.are out of the picture, you have reduced the catch by 20% already.
9 May 2009 at 6:46 PM
Jim Bouldin, you forgot Asia.
>and CFLs will be replaced by low energy LEDs with better light, hopefully soon.
This replacement happens sooner if people don’t invest in ten-year CFLs in the meantime.
9 May 2009 at 7:30 PM
As a Mechanical engineer I have used computers to model systems since I graduated in 1963. I never lost sight of the fact that my predicted results were never better than the assumptions I had to make to simplify the problem so that it was solvable on the computers that I had available at the time. I guess that if you can delude yourself into believing that, with today’s computing power, you can predict the future climate then you can also believe that the world’s population will come together and solve the “climate commons” problem.
9 May 2009 at 7:59 PM
222 MikeN - true. It is better to invest each dollar you would have spent on CFLs on LEDs instead to promote the technology. Each year replace a bulb or two and help save the planet. LEDs last forever. CFLs suck.
9 May 2009 at 8:08 PM
Jim Bouldin, you forgot Asia
No, that’s included in the 1.129 value (see 212, from Chip’s Figure 5). However, I may have excluded Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
9 May 2009 at 9:30 PM
I have never gotten more than 1 to 2 years from CFL’s. My standard florescents last for years.
9 May 2009 at 11:48 PM
re: #223 Jim Norvell
Please read about models and why people over-generalize.
Quite often, people who have long used one class of computer models think that all models have the same properties.
They don’t.
10 May 2009 at 12:36 AM
Jim, yes Eastern Europe and Middle East is what’s missed. The first number is with OECD90, and the all in number includes REF, ALM, and ASIA. I do think there is one flaw in Chip’s paper, not his doing. The IPCC emissions scenarios show a dropoff in later decades for ‘developed’ countries.
10 May 2009 at 12:41 AM
Jim Bouldin #225 — According to the latest issue of POWER, India is planning an increase in coal-fired capacity in the range of 200 GW to 400 GW by 2030, up from the 77 GW today. Coal provides 52% of India’s electricity. India is a representative example of the other atmospheric commons users: they are desperate for more power.
http://www.powermag.com/issues/features/Powering-the-People-Indias-Capacity-Expansion-Plans_1858.html
For India, and China as well, capacity must be increased just to keep up with anticipated growth in the economy. If plug-in cars are added, the need for more coal power will explode. In terms of electricity use, per capita consumption was only 480 kWh in 2005 — a quarter of China’s and 1/20th that of developed countries.
EL has been patiently trying to bring some sense of scale and some technical realism to the discussion of wind power. The intermittency of wind and solar power can’t be ignored. One major reason that wind is not more widely deployed is that it is most abundant at night, and scarce on still hot days when you need it most. You can’t just switch on a coal or nuclear plant when the wind dies down — they take days to get up to speed. At night, there is already enough power in the “spinning reserve” of coal and nuclear to meet demand, so wind goes to waste. Please don’t give up, EL.
10 May 2009 at 1:10 AM
#223 Jim Norvell:
You’re more than a day late and more than a dollar short.
As a MechE, do you think you’re qualified to make important judgments and form sweeping conclusions about the state of the art of machine computation?
As a MechE, do you consider yourself qualified to critique the science of climate modeling and find it lacking?
As a MechE, do you you believe yourself qualified to insult people working in fields other than your own?
As a MechE, do you imagine anyone credits that being a MechE gives you any particular useful insight into this topic?
As a MechE, do you assume your omniscience to be sufficiently reliable that we can all rely on you as the first and only one of thousands repeating exactly the same dull, tired talking points who happens finally to be correct?
Sorry, friend, but we’re both working on a childishly low level compared to the proprietors of this site and indeed many of the folks who regularly post here. You’re going to have to try a lot harder, or at least read enough of the topic to understand that unsupported assertions of the sort you made are the lowest form of sediment found on RC.
10 May 2009 at 2:46 AM
SecularAnimist often claims that renewable-energy electricity generation is already competitive with fossil fuels, even without any type of pollution tax. Yet China, Britain and others continue to build coal-fired stations. Doesn’t seem to add up.
10 May 2009 at 3:20 AM
Re 212 Chip:
A major assumption underlying your conclusions is that US actions serve little if China & India (mainly) refuse to act. Strangely, a major reason China cites for not doing more on AGW is the lack of action from the Western nations and our double standards (Australia gets a swipe too).
China and India have more at stake from the consequences of climate change than the US, Australia, and indeed most Western nations. You as a climate scientist should know this. Both have huge populations within 1-2 metres of sea level and both have vast areas of productive agricultural land predicted to suffer as a result of higher temperatures and less rainfall.
Their incentive to act - once there is an end to the stone-walling and pig-headedness from the nations primarily responsible extra CO2 in the atmosphere at the moment - is enormous. To assume, as you implicitly do, that they will not contribute to emissions reductions is disingenuous, to say the very least.
10 May 2009 at 3:48 AM
173 Ike Solem
the tragedy of the commons is a piece of bogus 20th century economic handwaving aimed at justifying private ownership of everything under the sun,
It isn’t bogus handwaving, it refers to the often observed phenomenon of unowned resources being needlessly run down.
Like farmers grazing their cattle on common ground, who have no incentive to not overgraze, since if they hold back they risk other farmers overgrazing. Noone can stop anyone else overgrazing, since noone has property rights over the grazing.
and the classic example of this is those pundits who claim that only “privatization of the atmosphere” will save us
I must say I have never encountered any such pundits. Have you?
Consider the Easter Island case - the locals eventually cut down all the trees which they had used to build their deep-sea canoes
In all likelihood this was also a tragedy of the commons - nobody owned the trees.
[Response: It’s tempting to speculate how the Easter Islander’s managed (or didn’t) their resources, but there are many more ways that they could have got it all wrong - unpriced externalities related to erosion, warfare, etc. So while it is an example of a society collapsing, one can’t know the exact path it took. - gavin]
10 May 2009 at 4:23 AM
Re #226, cheap ones abound, they last no time. Good ones are more expensive. Capatalism always finds a way of making stuff cheap and crap.
10 May 2009 at 4:26 AM
Worrying about CFLs and LEDs is concentrating on trivia. You probably only burn 1-2 kWh per day on lighting. Depending on where you live, if you drive a car you are spending between 14 and 40 kWh on petrol, and maybe 30-40 on heating if you have cold winters. These are the areas to address.
10 May 2009 at 4:44 AM
#99 Theo Hopkins Says:
“The UK only produces 2% of global emissions. So there is no point in us in the UK doing anything - is there?”
If you divide the world in 50 parts, each part has 2%. Following your argumentation there would be no point for each part, i.e. the total world population, to do anything.
10 May 2009 at 6:49 AM
Jim Norvell
9 May 2009 at 9:30 PM
Then you must be the unluckiest man on the planet, having bought all duds out there.
I have a house full of CFL’s, and every single one of them is more than 5 years old, the majority more than 10 years old. I even have a 3 w bulb serving as a night light in the bedroom of my 12-year old son that was one of a pair I bought when he was 3. The first one blew out after 1,5 years, the other one has been burning since then every night for a total of 8 yrs * 365 days * 10 hrs ≈ 30.000 hrs.
Be careful when writing a reply, you might spill your coffee in your laptop
10 May 2009 at 7:04 AM
SecularAnimist
8 May 2009 at 3:02 PM
You should take the average capacity factor into consideration when making these kind of comparisons. That means you need ~3 GW of wind to replace 1 GW of coal (assuming you meant 27 new 1G coal-fired power plants, since 1 GW is a typical capacity for a coal plant).
10 May 2009 at 7:08 AM
Gavin,
It is becoming very clear that there is another post (or series) on how climate models work and how their results are interpreted, as well as how the models and results are validated. Denialists are talking as if all computer models are the same–confusing even dynamical and statistical modeling. They also seem to think that whatever the computer spits out is taken as Gospel writ in stone.
Perhaps a series of posts might discourage the use of such straw men.
10 May 2009 at 7:21 AM
#195: “The tragedy of the commons isn’t actually a tragedy of the commons - it’s a tragedy of the free-for-all. There are any number of ways to overcome the tragedy of the commons - from Mutually Assured Destruction, to consensual co-operation - (and in many societies around the world, the latter has worked for centuries to millenia), but the free market ain’t one of them.”
This is confused. The “free market” certainly pulls on the chain of destruction where resources are not owned or managed, and may, by introducing new technologies, even accelerate the destruction of commons and to the breakdown of communal systems. But broadly speaking, where there are adequately defined and protected “property rights”, the free market does not itself generate the destruction of commons.
And property rights, broadly speaking, are simply instituitions that societies have gradually developed to side-step tragedy of the commons situations.
10 May 2009 at 7:33 AM
#196 Tamino, I share your sentiments.
Many of those who profess to be interested in protecting “free market capitalism” really have no clue themselves as to how it works, and why it DOESN’T work in the case of environmental problems.
By likewise, many “environmentalists” have very little understanding of how and why markets can go wrong.
A little discussed aspect of the problem is that there is also a rather apparent tragedy of the GOVERNMENT commons, as governments both tend to do a poor job of managing assets and frequently end up either serving special deal to special interests or as public battlegrounds (since different people can`t simply do independent deals to accommodate their differing perspectives).
It`s the battle to influence and win favors from government that leads to partisanship (and “ludicrous rationalization”), which is often hijacked by special interests.
It`s not clear to me how much Chip Knappenberger understands markets, or understands how his posts provide cover for fossil fuel firms/investors who profit while shifting risks to all of us.
But there`s plenty all around. I note that even Jim Hansen strongly favors taxes over cap and trade bureaucracy and green pork.
10 May 2009 at 7:34 AM
227 I looked through some of his opinions.
“d) Models that are “wrong”, but very useful.”
All models are wrong, but some are useful. No model can be complete and consistent at the same time. If anyone tells you differently, they are very wrong.
[Response: You are thinking about a pure mathematical construct (cf. Godel) that isn’t quite the same as the models we are talking about in climate. Physical models are consistent, and strive to be complete (though still have some ways to go). There are no complete but inconsistent models in climate. - gavin]
He is correct that people take different views depending upon their background. Sometimes they are correct, and they may be expressing a side of the story you don’t normally see in another profession.
It reminds me of a joke.
A biologist, a physicist and a mathematician were sitting in a street cafe watching the crowd. Across the street they saw a man and a woman entering a building. Ten minutes later they reappeared together with a third person.
- They have multiplied, said the biologist.
- Oh no, an error in measurement, the physicist sighed.
- If exactly one person enters the building now, it will be empty again, the mathematician concluded.
10 May 2009 at 7:58 AM
I have read nearly all replies to this post and what some people realise, but not enough imo, is that humans base their decisions almost entirely on emotions. How much we like to flatter ourselves thinking we are rational life forms, when it comes to the point of choosing a or b, it is done on gut feeling and the logic is applied afterwards to justify that decision.
Imo the kind of reasoning that Chip Knappenberger stands for is: “We (the western world) must not do anything unless we can be sure they (the developing nations) will do their part as well” (justified afterwards by some numerical analysis that shows that doing something unilaterally would not make a difference).
That would make the developing nations feel like they are as responsible for the problem as we are. But they don’t feel that way, and with good reason I might say. Ignoring that feeling is a recipe for failure. No matter how much ’scientific evidence’ and ‘economic analyses’ you throw at it, they will not be convinced. If we want to get the job done, we must get them on board. If we want to get them on board, we must convince them. If we want to convince them, we must deal with their emotions.
What they want to see is us admitting that it is a problem that we created. The only convincing way to do so is to start unilateral emission reductions. Then you can be sure they will do their share. Or can’t you be sure? You see, essentially it is a question of TRUST.
10 May 2009 at 8:58 AM
Wilmot McCutchen
10 May 2009 at 12:41 AM
I hope you don’t mind me doing some education too.
It is more accurate to call it ‘variability’ instead of ‘intermittancy’. The latter makes it sound as if one moment there is wind and the other moment there is not. Wind power fluctuates over time. Wind is not binary.
Variability does not equate to unpredictability. Wind can be predicted quite accurately on an hourly basis 1 day ahead. REISI (the German grid operator) does so routinely with an error of 6%. That gives them ample time for planning any necessary additional power. Also, the better complement for renewables are combined cycle gas turbines, not coal and nuclear.
And do not forget solar. Especially the solar thermal with molten salt storage variety that can easily follow demand and get you through those relatively calm summer periods.
I could easily turn that around: “At night, there is already enough wind power so the inflexible coal and nuclear power goes to waste”. In the energy industry, nuclear and coal are generally used as ‘baseload’ as their inflexible nature makes them hardly suitable for spinning reserve.
Night time surpluses do not need to go to waste, there is enough pumped hydro available around the world to deal with that. It is also not unrealistic to predict large amounts of electric vehicles charging overnight. And nobody is advocating 100% wind, so don’t make the error of discarding any energy source that can not on its own provide for 100% of our energy needs in todays world.
10 May 2009 at 10:19 AM
An interesting approach:
Contrast with:
10 May 2009 at 10:54 AM
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_extension_tragedy_commons.html
Extension of The Tragedy of the Commons
by Garrett Hardin, 1998, published by The American Association for the Advancement of Science
“… the weightiest mistake in my synthesizing paper was the omission of the modifying adjective “unmanaged.” In correcting this omission, one can generalize the practical conclusion in this way: “A ‘managed commons’ describes either so cia lism or the privatism of free enterprise. Either one may work; either one may fail: ‘The devil is in the details.’ But with an unmanaged commons, you can forget about the devil: As overuse of resources reduces carrying capacity, ruin is inevitable.” With this modification firmly in place, “The Tragedy of the Commons” is well tailored for further interdisciplinary syntheses.
A final word about interdisciplinary work–do not underestimate its difficulties. The more specialties we try to stitch together, the greater are our opportunities to make mistakes–and the more numerous are our willing critics. Science has been defined as a self-correcting system. In this struggle, our primary adversary should be “the nature of things.” As a matter of policy, we must not reply in kind to those critics who love to indulge in name-calling. (They are all too numerous in interdisciplinary undertakings.) But critics who, ignoring personalities, focus on the underlying nature of things are the true friends of science.”
————-
It’s sadly ironic that Hardin long ago answered most of the complaints and opinions and political rants posted in the comment thread above, correcting the misapprehensions people grab onto.
Read his summary, folks. He long ago spoke to the misunderstanding Ike and Tierney and everyone in between is demonstrating.
________
“A ‘managed commons’ describes either soc iali sm or the privatism of free enterprise. Either one may work; either one may fail: ‘The devil is in the details.’ But with an unmanaged commons, you can forget about the devil: As overuse of resources reduces carrying capacity, ruin is inevitable.” — Garrett Hardin
_________
Mangling of the word s oc i al i sm courtesy of the spam filter
10 May 2009 at 11:01 AM
In all likelihood this was also a tragedy of the commons - nobody owned the trees.
Ownership didn’t stop Maxxam from slaughtering the redwoods on the California coast as fast as they possibly could 25 years ago, or numerous companies from doing the same in the Great Lakes states 125 years ago, or same in the Pacific Northwest shortly after that, or…
Your propositions are ludicrous and have no basis in reality. Has nothing to do with “ownership” unless by that term you denote a shared sense of responsibility and right of influence (which you do not).
10 May 2009 at 11:13 AM
Anne van der Bom Says (10 May 2009 at 8:58):
“Also, the better complement for renewables are combined cycle gas turbines, not coal and nuclear.”
Err… Don’t those combined-cycle gas turbines generally run on natural gas? Isn’t natural gas a fossil fuel? So how does using them in combination with wind get to zero CO2?
“And do not forget solar. Especially the solar thermal with molten salt storage variety…”
Which can’t be built in sufficient numbers without causing unacceptable (to me, at least) environmental destruction?
“Night time surpluses do not need to go to waste, there is enough pumped hydro available around the world to deal with that.”
This is not the case. There is in fact very little pumped hydro storage, and few suitable sites. There’s also a large energy loss (15-30%) due to inefficiency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
10 May 2009 at 11:33 AM
Phil Scadden Says (10 May 2009 at 4:26):
“Worrying about CFLs and LEDs is concentrating on trivia. You probably only burn 1-2 kWh per day on lighting.”
But as the saying goes, “many a mickle makes a muckle”. Add up all the little bits of saving, that can be done with little or no effort, and you get a respectable total. Here you can get better quality light, save money & time over the long term, and reduce energy use.
“Depending on where you live, if you drive a car you are spending between 14 and 40 kWh on petrol, and maybe 30-40 on heating if you have cold winters.”
Again, easy enough to reduce that. There’s at least a factor of 5 spread in energy efficiency even between current car models. At a rough estimate, I use about half your 14 KWh minimum, and when the Aptera & similar electric/hybrid models reach the market, that’ll be cut at least in half. Likewise with home heating: small investments on insulation &c can reduce your estimated energy use by quite a bit, while in much of the country solar heating could reduce use still further.
10 May 2009 at 11:43 AM
James wrote:
Where is the evidence to support your assertion that there are “many better choices” than concentrating solar thermal when it comes to environmental impacts?
Let me refer you to a study that I have cited before:
From Stanford University’s press release describing this study (emphasis added):
So, Jacobson’s quantitative, detailed study found that concentrating solar thermal was the second best solution after wind power, considering its overall impacts, including water, land use and wildlife.
By the way, Jacobson’s study found that nuclear power tied with coal (with carbon capture & sequestration) as the worst in their overall impact.
And as ClimateProgress notes:
So again, where is the evidence to support your assertion that “there are many better choices” than concentrating solar thermal?
Wilmot McCutchen wrote: “The intermittency of wind and solar power can’t be ignored.”
Anne van der Bom replied: “It is more accurate to call it ‘variability’ instead of ‘intermittancy’.”
Anne is correct that the accurate term is variability, and it has neither been ignored nor is it the huge problem that some commenters suggest.
Jacobson’s study also addressed this issue. From the Stanford press release:
The same applies to solar — and of course concentrating solar thermal with thermal storage is 24×7 baseload power.
Multiple studies in Germany and the USA have found that a diversified regional portfolio of renewable energy sources — wind, solar, geothermal, biomass — can produce 24×7 baseload power that is at least as reliable as coal or nuclear.
10 May 2009 at 11:45 AM
Anne van der Bom #244 — I’m all for rapid deployment of wind, and I appreciate your comments. Although, as you point out, it is possible to integrate a variable power source such as wind, there are also times when the output of a particular turbine goes to zero.
Wind must be in a certain speed range to operate, and when the wind is too weak or too strong there is no wind power. So replacing coal with wind for baseload power will be impossible unless some means for energy storage of wind (e.g. improved batteries, pumped hydro) can be developed.
My proposal, stated above at #88, is that wind when not used for grid power be used to crack coal CO2. Thus the grid stays reliable, and emissions are reduced at least partially. CO2 becomes, in effect, the storage medium for wind. The more wind turbines, the better for the coal plants — there would be no antagonism, no choice between one and the other. Carbon recycling could also produce vehicle fuel from coal CO2, by syntrolysis. To me that seems better than trying to substitute wind for coal as baseload power while countries like India and China are massively increasing coal capacity.
10 May 2009 at 11:53 AM
By the way, returning to the original topic of this thread:
I think that if Chip Knappenberger has demonstrated anything, it is that the emissions reduction proposals now before Congress are wholly inadequate, and that we need much stronger legislation, which puts a far greater price on carbon pollution than is now being considered.
Moreover, we need even stronger action than that — arguably the government should begin seizing and shutting down coal-fired power plants, and banning the manufacture of gasoline-fueled automobiles.
The USA, being by far the largest cumulative contributor to the anthropogenic excess of CO2, and being a world leader as well, should undertake such “innovations” to set an example for other nations.
I hope that Chip Knappenberger will be gratified when his study is cited in support of such measures.
10 May 2009 at 12:14 PM
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.04.005
Overfish an area, you get population declines, changes in species ratios, the sort of thing politics can’t cope with although the scientists can point out the process as it’s happening. A classic current example is the industrial overfishing of the Red Sea, taking out the resource that individuals and families rely on for survival.
And so people turn to piracy. Google “Red Sea” fishery
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2007.04.005
10 May 2009 at 12:24 PM
#245, Jim Galasyn:
Yes, I mentioned this approach with regards to the Icelandic cod fishery in #188.
10 May 2009 at 12:34 PM
Could the inhabitants of Easter Island have used cap and trade to solve their deforestation problem? Or would they just have fought it out over the last remaining trees, the way the world is doing with conventional oil today?
10 May 2009 at 12:55 PM
“Or are you seriously proposing that if we just domesticated the biosphere, everything would be fine?”
There would probably be some issues with recruiting the necessary domesticators
10 May 2009 at 12:57 PM
Wind and solar and batteries. That’s been the approach for a hundred years, so please, lay off the disingenuous claims.
EDISON’S LATEST MARVEL — THE ELECTRIC COUNTRY HOUSE (NYT Sunday Sept 15 1912)
Replace the gasoline generator with solar photovoltaic panels and an inverter and voltage regulator, and you have the fossil fuel-free version of the same thing.
It is odd to see how the New York Times has changed… and look, they even talk about energy technology and science, instead of just quoting the EPRI PR guy:
Gosh, all that science makes my head spin - readers don’t want to hear about that, they just want to hear what the coal lobby’s economic analysts have to say, i.e. the Electric Power Research Institute
Who needs science when you have an expert to tell you what you need to know? It’s so much easier that way, isn’t it?
10 May 2009 at 1:31 PM
Re: Renewable energy
No one denies it will be quite a job to power the world with renewables only. However:
- we will have to do it anyway. Conventional fuels will run out in any case.
- one should not try to generate all energy that is used now, since most of it is wasted. To give an example, there is no real need to drive an SUV; you can use a small (electric?) car, or public transport. Another example: it is really necessary to air condition all of Texas the conventional way? Why not (say) use thick walled buildings (large thermal inertia + good insulation), with solar panels and solar collectors on top?
And yes, I am aware that the current situation cannot be changed overnight, and that change will cost money.
10 May 2009 at 1:38 PM
Neal, 9 May 2009 at 5:23, to check whether a word has appeared, use the “find” function in your browser while the comments page is open — e.g. search for ” cod ” — Gavin used that as his example to begin this.